The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #601  
Old 01-13-2007, 07:13 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg
They announced that Camilla and Charles don't mind if Parliament passes legislation barring her from being Queen Consort to please the public. Since they are already married and she is Princess of Wales, why should be not be Queen?

If there is a public outcry over the issue, then it can be done. But I doubt anyone thinks there will be. Diana died a divorcee and was never going to be Queen anyway.

It's silly and diminishes the monarchy to start up memories of 1936 again. Camilla is the lawful wife of Prince Charles and has every right to be Queen when the time comes.
Exactly. Anything even remotely resembling a morganatic marriage is going to make a total mockery of the abdication. Even if Charles isn't bothered about what that might do to the memories and legacy of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, I'm sure he isn't going to stand for anything that casts his beloved Grannie in a bad light.
__________________

  #602  
Old 01-13-2007, 08:45 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn
Whether some people like it or not, she does have every right. She is married to the heir apparent, the Prince of Wales, and she is the Princess of Wales, whether she is known as such or not, and when her husband becomes King, she has the right to be Queen. For her not to become Queen, her current rights will have to be taken away from her by Parliament.
Roslyn, I am speaking from a moral point of view, not a legal one.
__________________

  #603  
Old 01-13-2007, 08:49 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avareenah
Roslyn, I am speaking from a moral point of view, not a legal one.
The legal one is the only one that matters to me in this context.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
  #604  
Old 01-13-2007, 10:07 PM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avareenah
Roslyn, I am speaking from a moral point of view, not a legal one.


What does the moral point of view have to do with this? It doesn't matter that they had an affair. That's in the past. A lot of religions frown upon extra-martial fooling around, but that doesn't mean rights are taken away from people because of it. What matters is that they are married now and that she has the legal right to be Queen when Charles ascends the throne.
__________________
"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever........ "
  #605  
Old 01-13-2007, 10:12 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
Sure she can. As far as I know, under British law unless there's an intent to defraud or otherwise use the name to engage in criminal activity, people can call themselves whatever they like. It may not be their legal name, but that doesn't mean they can't call themselves HRH the Princess Consort. Or Bozo the Clown, for that matter.

I mean, if HM the Queen Consort announces that she'd like to be known as HRH the Princess Consort, who's going to say, "sorry but you can't, ma'am"? I can't exactly see them throwing her in the Tower because of it.
It is both a constitutional and legal matter for a future Parliament to consider when the time comes. Camilla could not simply announce "I will be known as HRH The Princess Consort" the moment her husband becomes King because she has no legal right to determine her style and title under the succession.

Legally, she would already be HM The Queen under the constitutional precedents of the monarchy as recognized by Parliament and the Crown Commonwealth. As we saw with Queen Caroline, not even the King can remove his wife's rank and title, only Parliament can. Again, the precedents cannot be ignored, as was made clear when the wedding was announced.

There is no such title as Princess Consort nor has it ever been used for the wife of the King. If Parliament agrees the King has the right to determine his wife's style and title irrespective of her legal rank as Queen Consort, then he is free to issue letters patent and create it. I highly doubt they will agree the Sovereign can do this without legislation being passed.

This is the only legal way to allow Camilla not to be known as Queen.
  #606  
Old 01-13-2007, 10:22 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sister Morphine
What does the moral point of view have to do with this? It doesn't matter that they had an affair. That's in the past. A lot of religions frown upon extra-martial fooling around, but that doesn't mean rights are taken away from people because of it. What matters is that they are married now and that she has the legal right to be Queen when Charles ascends the throne.
Yes, she does and I don't dispute that. When I speak about the "moral" point of view, I'm referring to the sensitivities of public opinion which, when the time comes, these two will simply have to take into account whether they like it or not, if they want to be accepted by the majority of their subjects. Simple as that.

I am not saying that the past is not in the past and that they don't have the right to "move on" with their lives, but there are still many people who resent their past behaviour and the way in which Camilla came to the place she is in today and this is simply FACT.
  #607  
Old 01-13-2007, 10:49 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
In my opinion, the "moral question" was solved and addressed by Tony Blair, The Queen and the Archbishop of Canterbury all approving the marriage of Camilla Parker-Bowles to HRH The Prince of Wales. The public was prepared to accept a marriage, knowing full-well this meant Camilla would eventually become Queen.

If there really was a "moral" objection, then Charles should never have been allowed to marry her and retain his right to the succession. He simply could have told The Queen he was prepared to marry Camilla and renounce his rights to do so and Parliament could have passed an Act confirming William was now the heir to the throne.

That didn't happen, so we have to accept that she is Princess of Wales and a future Queen Consort when the time comes.
  #608  
Old 01-13-2007, 10:51 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 589
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avareenah
Yes, she does and I don't dispute that. When I speak about the "moral" point of view, I'm referring to the sensitivities of public opinion which, when the time comes, these two will simply have to take into account whether they like it or not, if they want to be accepted by the majority of their subjects. Simple as that.

I am not saying that the past is not in the past and that they don't have the right to "move on" with their lives, but there are still many people who resent their past behaviour and the way in which Camilla came to the place she is in today and this is simply FACT.
I agree that many people have negative impressions about Charles and Camilla. But I think many people think monarchy is irrelevant today as well. Once Charles becomes King, I think the title of Camilla as Queen Consort will be smoothly solved. She has been already been his legal wife for almost two years and equally share with his rank. Then again why cannot she have her legal right to be called Queen Consort when he ascends his throne? I think this can be a really mocking of many things, Charles's kingship, the monarchy, and the equal rights of a woman being one man's lawful wife and the equal treatment of current wife against former wife.

Personally I think British monarchy will be a laughing stock if Camilla is not being called Queen and her husband is King. As a man, he cannot protect his wife, what on earth can people to expect the kingship and reserve the monarchy?
  #609  
Old 01-13-2007, 10:59 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
I agree. In a modern society where many people get divorced, I doubt the public will be storming the palace gates demanding The Queen be stripped of her rank and title to please a handful of Diana fanatics who haven't moved on.

If her two sons are able to accept Camilla and be supportive, then that's good enough for me. She should be Queen and that's it.
  #610  
Old 01-13-2007, 11:15 PM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avareenah
Yes, she does and I don't dispute that. When I speak about the "moral" point of view, I'm referring to the sensitivities of public opinion which, when the time comes, these two will simply have to take into account whether they like it or not, if they want to be accepted by the majority of their subjects. Simple as that.

I am not saying that the past is not in the past and that they don't have the right to "move on" with their lives, but there are still many people who resent their past behaviour and the way in which Camilla came to the place she is in today and this is simply FACT.


Is Camilla not accepted by the majority of her subjects? People can disapprove of how she came to be Charles' wife all they want. They can resent the way she came to be what she is all they want. The fact of the matter is, they were given permission to wed, and they did. If them getting married was that much of a problem, it wouldn't have happened.


Camilla shouldn't feel like she has to placate the "sensitivities" of the Diana supporters who resent her. Diana is dead. Before she died, she wasn't even his wife anymore. Had he been a widower and he then married Camilla....okay, you'd have a point. However they had been divorced for 5 years by that time. Everyone in the whole picture was to blame for the divorce, not just one party. If you punish Camilla, you must punish Charles and how should the people go about doing that? Pressuring him to abdicate? Storming Buckingham Palace and demanding he divorce her?


All this talk about protecting and recognizing people's sensitivities is ridiculous.
__________________
"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever........ "
  #611  
Old 01-13-2007, 11:25 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 158
branchg, what do you mean "the public was prepared to accept the marriage"? The public was not asked. As you said, the marriage went ahead after consultation with the Queen, The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Prime Minister. That these three approved the marriage does not mean that they condoned what was going on up to the time the marriage took place.

Also, why do you keep mentioning "Diana fanatics"? Is it only "Diana fanatics" who disapprove of longstanding extra-marital affairs where the man concerned appears to ignore his own young wife in favour of his mistress? Is it only "Diana fanatics" who are concerned that Charles for many years went against church teaching about the sanctity of marriage, when one day he will be representative of that church? I don't think so.

However, I'm retiring from this discussion now - it's just going round and round in circles without getting anywhere. Fun, though...
  #612  
Old 01-13-2007, 11:40 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 589
According to the recent polls in years about Charles and Camilla's marrige, the majority has no problem against that. Both BBC and other media have proved that. And I think both Buckingham Palace and Clarence House have been aware that and which helps Charles to make decision to marry Camilla while he can retain his succession. Charles and his office knows that. They don't ask people to vote on whether he cannot marry Camilla or not, but they know the tide for their marriage stable now. So Charles and his office made their comments about Camilla and the Queen title. Unfortunately they are wrong or a bit misleading about the matter.So now people are more confused about this matter.

For Camilla's future title, I know both her and Charles can ask the parliament to pass a legislation to use HRH Princess Consort, but why do they want to do that? And the legal experts think it is not proper to pass a law only for a person. So I think it is better for any person to be realistic about Camilla's future title as Queen Consort. Like or not, people have to accept the fact. If they really hate the idea of King Charles and Queen Camilla, I think the only way is to abolish it.
  #613  
Old 01-14-2007, 12:32 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Diana was having affairs too.....it's not fair to blame Charles and Charles alone for the failure of the marriage. Their marriage failed for many reasons and it wasn't just Camilla. It's takes two to make a marriage work and two to make it fail.

Diana has passed away and is now part of history. Camilla is Princess of Wales and a future Queen. It's just the way life turned out.
  #614  
Old 01-14-2007, 02:40 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,476
OK, it's time to get off the Charles/Diana/Camilla merry-go-round lest yet another thread succumbs to the inevitable ugliness.

Thanks.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
  #615  
Old 01-14-2007, 08:26 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
I think I should just point out again that not everybody agrees with either of the following:

a) that legislation will be needed for the queen to be styled as HRH the Princess Consort
b) that Camilla will be known as anything other than HRH the Princess Consort

The matter has been announced and it will require something for it to be altered and for her title as queen ever to be used. Branchq likes to style her Princess of Wales, but whatever she is legally, she is known around the world, in the UK, and even in TRF, as merely "The Duchess of Cornwall". And in exactly the same way, she'll be known as "The Princess Consort", and spin it any which way you like, both titles are demotions of her rank.

She is the first pow in history to be forced to use a lesser title, and it lowers her status in the eyes of all the world.

For her to be known as Queen, Charles will need to backtrack on the current position. I hope that happens, but I am not holding my breath.
  #616  
Old 01-14-2007, 08:33 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,859
1. Everybody does agree that legislation is needed for the Queen Consort to be styled as HRH The Princess Consort as it would mean creating a new office and that is very much a Parliamentary matter.

2. We were told several days after their engagement that it would be impossible for Camilla to be called the Princess Consort without an act of Parliament and the permission and approval of the other Commonwealth realms.
__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
  #617  
Old 01-14-2007, 08:42 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
1. Beatrix. By definition, since I do not agree, everybody does not agree. Without wishing to reveal my identity, I am involved in these matters on a professional level and the assertion is simply and factually false. It has been revealed to be false by me, on this thread, quoting a spokeswoman from the Department of Constitutional Affairs. Frankly she knows an awful lot better than Branchq, you or other posters here.

No legislation is required for anything other than the removal of the title and rank of queen. She may use a lesser title.

2. We certainly were not, kindly adduce the source. We were told precisely the opposite.
  #618  
Old 01-14-2007, 08:46 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,859
With respect, "I know something I can't tell you" doesn't qualify as a factual source and we can only go on factual sources. The Department for Constitutional Affairs has said several times that legislation WILL be needed so I'd humbly suggest that there has been some mix up somewhere because not only have Lord Falconer, the Department for Constitutional Affairs, Buckingham Palace, Clarence House and various constitutional experts all said that legislation is a must but you're claim that she may use a lesser title is exactly why legislation IS needed.

Camilla can use a lesser title but only one that exists and the title and office of 'Princess Consort' doesn't exist. To do so in the circumstances, an act of parliament is needed so I'm afraid I'll continue to disagree with you until all those sources who have told us legislation is needed, tell us it isn't, I'll stick with Branchq and the other posters who don't know an awful lot.
__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
  #619  
Old 01-14-2007, 08:53 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
Beatrix Fan,

the Dept of C.A. has absolutely not said that whatsoever. Prove it! I have provided quotes and links to support my assertions, but you and Branchq have not. Never, not once.

The only legislation needed would be to deny her her place and rank as queen. No legislation is needed for her to be known as HRH the Princess Consort.

I provided direct proof of that, in this thread. Where is yours to contradict mine?

Legislation is not needed to create a title. The title HRH the Princess Consort does not yet exist and can be created by a simple letters patent. No legislation needed there either. Once that title is created, Camilla can use it all her life, and never be known as HM the Q if she goes by the lesser title. She is not known as the PoW, but only by her lesser title at present.

If you can deny either of these facts I would like to see some proof. I have had nothing but assertions from posters. No links, articles, or quotes from government or royal sources arguing the contrary.

Tell me, when Charles becomes King and Camilla becomes known as HRH the Princess Consort, will I get an apology from the "we all know she'll be called Queen Camilla" faction on TRF? Again, I won't hold my breath!
  #620  
Old 01-14-2007, 08:53 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,859
Okay dear. You're right, the British establishment is wrong and we all apologise.
__________________

__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
Closed Thread

Tags
accession, camilla, coronation, duchess of cornwall, prince charles, prince of wales, styles and titles


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
Sarah, Duchess of York Current Events 1: January 2003-September 2004 Jacqueline Current Events Archive 170 09-23-2004 04:30 PM
Pavlos And Marie Chantal: Current Events December 2002 - October 2003 Julia Crown Prince Pavlos, Marie Chantal and Family 76 10-14-2003 09:40 PM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit best outfit september catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria's maternity fashion current events duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece jubilee celebration kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction military monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess madeleine 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 mathilde daytime fashion queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania style 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


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 04:19 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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