The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #721  
Old 01-16-2007, 11:22 PM
sirhon11234's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,467
quote

Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel
That's going to be a major problem for William's future bride when Charles becomes King.
Maybe or maybe not.
__________________

__________________
"I think the biggest disease the world suffers from in this day and age is the disease of people feeling unloved."
Diana, the Princess of Wales
  #722  
Old 01-16-2007, 11:26 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg
Unless Parliament and the Crown Commonwealth agree to alter the title and style of the succession, it's not going to happen.
Absolutely And there remains the real possibility that it shall happen.

Not directed at any one person, but there is emphasis being layed upon the legalities as if it were a re-writing of the 10 commandments. Its really nothing of the sort. The viability of the process could possibly come to surprise many. To think that Commonwealth governments would deny or in any way block an act of parliament when having been advised on the intent is not really justified. As is, I would be certain that those Commonwealth nations who should have any say in the matter are already aware of what is proposed, and have been since the engagement. I'm not saying this is a process which does not require a depth of political provision because it certainly does, but if some feel that Camilla will not be accorded an official lesser position (as is the will thus far) because of the process involved, you must be aware that the Palace of Westminster has decided upon greater, more concerning issues than that of a royal consort's *1 official title (not that they have ever been faced with officially downgrading the sovereign's spouse, but I'm certain its not something which cannot be done).

I say to everyone that its best to keep an open mind, that way no one gets dissapointed .lol.

Either way, Princess Consort or Queen Consort..Camilla will be 'the' Consort and a great one at that!
__________________

  #723  
Old 01-16-2007, 11:30 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson
On the not being a Princess part, the Duke of Edinburgh is not covered by the letters patent of 1917, but he was created HRH in 1947 and a Prince of the United Kingdom in 1957. I don't see why she couldn't simply be granted those titles in addition to the title of HM the Queen, and then just use the Princess Consort titles. I wouldn't agree with it however, and I would prefer to see her as Queen.
Because you cannot be a Princess of the UK if you are HM The Queen. It's that simple.
  #724  
Old 01-16-2007, 11:34 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
Why didnt she just use the Princess of Wales title and have done with it? Its caused so many problems. She should have gone with the Princess of Wales title and they should have been honest and said, yes, she will be Queen. It would save so much hassle.
I agree. But I also understand the point of being styled by her ducal title instead since Diana died as Princess of Wales and was the mother of the future king.

However, once she becomes Queen, that's when the accomodation should end.
  #725  
Old 01-16-2007, 11:40 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Why on earth they didn't just go with Duchess of Cornwall, to become Queen Consort when Charles became king, is beyond me. I think this is another piece of bad advice they were given by people who should have known a great deal better.

There are several reasons for her to take the Duchess of Cornwall title, and it probably led to her acceptance by the public more quickly and easily than if she'd called herself Princess of Wales. But this Princess Consort stuff is just ludicrous.
  #726  
Old 01-16-2007, 11:50 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
But this Princess Consort stuff is just ludicrous.
To you and others, perhaps, Elspeth. But there are those who see reason in it

I know those who appose and those who support both here and in England. To be honest, of those I know to care in the UK, a great many support the change. Of course there are those who don't and that is perfectly fine and they too make up a notable quantity. And then there are those who couldn't give a flying pig.lol.
  #727  
Old 01-17-2007, 12:47 AM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel
That's going to be a major problem for William's future bride when Charles becomes King.


Yeah, what will happen when the Prince of Wales's wife outranks the King's wife? That'll make placement at royal functions a bit tricky.


Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson
On the not being a Princess part, the Duke of Edinburgh is not covered by the letters patent of 1917, but he was created HRH in 1947 and a Prince of the United Kingdom in 1957. I don't see why she couldn't simply be granted those titles in addition to the title of HM the Queen, and then just use the Princess Consort titles. I wouldn't agree with it however, and I would prefer to see her as Queen.

Prince Philip was already a prince when he married Elizabeth, her father the King gave him a dukedom to re-enhance his HRH status, as he had to relinquish rights to the Greek and Danish thrones to marry her. So he made a [downgraded] Prince a Duke and the Queen made a Duke a Prince (with the "The" befitting the child of a sovereign). All that is an upgrade. And all the titles he received showed that it was an equal marriage, not morgantic.


Now, you take the Queen and downgrade her to a morgantic wife of the King? Where's the fairness in that?
__________________
"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........ "
  #728  
Old 01-17-2007, 01:05 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sister Morphine
Yeah, what will happen when the Prince of Wales's wife outranks the King's wife? That'll make placement at royal functions a bit tricky.
Is this really the case? I must say that I wasn't aware of that so if someone can conforim this (branchg or anyone who know's for definite) that would be muchly appreciated

As much as I'm in favour of Camilla being created Princess Consort, I don't like the idea of her being preceded by the next Princess of Wales.
  #729  
Old 01-17-2007, 01:15 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
I presume Charles could say that she takes precedence over other royal ladies, much as the Queen has said that Princess Alexandra has precedence over the wives of princes higher in the line of succession. But "Princess Consort" isn't a known quantity, and it's basically sending a message that the holder of the title is in some way less worthy.

The whole point of the British royal system, unlike some of the European countries where women marrying into the royal family can be given titles in their own right, is that a woman's position and title is conferred as a result of her marriage and doesn't stand separate from that of her husband. As was said at the time of the abdication, you'd be looking at a law saying something along the lines that "Whereas the wife of the King is the Queen, and whereas the current wife of the King is unfit to be Queen..." which is something they weren't prepared to get into. And rightly so, in my opinion. I mean, who's to judge whether a woman is fit to be Queen? The heir to the throne may not be fit to be King (or Queen), but most of the time that doesn't stop it happening anyway.

If you have a wife who's unfit to be Queen but the Prince of Wales has a wife who's presumably fit to be Queen, then, indeed, who does have precedence? For a woman unfit to be Queen to have precedence over a woman fit to be Queen brings up some awkward questions of its own. Which is part of why I said I think this whole business is ludicrous.
  #730  
Old 01-17-2007, 01:24 AM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Royale
Is this really the case? I must say that I wasn't aware of that so if someone can conforim this (branchg or anyone who know's for definite) that would be muchly appreciated

As much as I'm in favour of Camilla being created Princess Consort, I don't like the idea of her being preceded by the next Princess of Wales.

Well, much like what Elspeth just said, if William marries Kate....that obviously means they see her fit to be Queen one day. She'd be HRH Princess William of Wales. When Charles becomes King, she'd be HRH Princess William, Princess of Wales. Now, Charles might pass Letters Patent making her a princess of the UK in her own right, which would make her HRH Princess Catherine, Princess of Wales.

If Camilla is Princess Consort, not Queen Consort, that's basically putting her at equal rank of the Princess of Wales...both consorts of a Prince. Difference being Princess Consort says "morgantic marriage", Princess of Wales does not. So, Catherine would outrank Camilla....the King's wife. Not pretty. Hence why this "Princess Consort" business is a load of bunkum.
__________________
"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........ "
  #731  
Old 01-17-2007, 01:25 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
I presume Charles could say that she takes precedence over other royal ladies, much as the Queen has said that Princess Alexandra has precedence over the wives of princes higher in the line of succession. But "Princess Consort" isn't a known quantity, and it's basically sending a message that the holder of the title is in some way less worthy.

The whole point of the British royal system, unlike some of the European countries where women marrying into the royal family can be given titles in their own right, is that a woman's position and title is conferred as a result of her marriage and doesn't stand separate from that of her husband. As was said at the time of the abdication, you'd be looking at a law saying something along the lines that "Whereas the wife of the King is the Queen, and whereas the current wife of the King is unfit to be Queen..." which is something they weren't prepared to get into. And rightly so, in my opinion. I mean, who's to judge whether a woman is fit to be Queen? The heir to the throne may not be fit to be King (or Queen), but most of the time that doesn't stop it happening anyway.

If you have a wife who's unfit to be Queen but the Prince of Wales has a wife who's presumably fit to be Queen, then, indeed, who does have precedence? For a woman unfit to be Queen to have precedence over a woman fit to be Queen brings up some awkward questions of its own. Which is part of why I said I think this whole business is ludicrous.
Thanks for your response.

And just to note, I wasn't questioning why you thought it was rediculous. If that's what you feel then that's perfectly fine.

As long as Camilla (although possibly holding a lesser title) still remains in court precedence accorded to the sovereigns spouse, then all is fine by me. But if not, then perhaps I shall dedicate some time to re-think my favoured alternative.
  #732  
Old 01-17-2007, 05:16 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 158
These facts cannot be ignored:-

It was not the public who asked that Camilla be known as "Princess Consort" when Charles ascends the throne.

This was a public statement from Clarence House itself. Presumably, this means that it was made at the behest of Charles, Prince of Wales and his wife Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall.

As far as I'm concerned - they said that, so, when the time comes, I shall expect that to be abided by. Otherwise - do they think people are silly or have short memories?

If Camilla is known as anything else, they are the ones whose personal integrity will be questioned - no one elses. They will, in fact, have lied.
  #733  
Old 01-17-2007, 05:31 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,859
People don't have short memories - we just know the facts which we didn't know when the plan was originally announced. Originally, they said Charles and Camilla could marry at St George's and then found out that it wasn't possible. Originally they said Camilla would be known as Princess Consort and then found out that it wasn't possible without an act of parliament. Personally, I believe it was nothing more than a hopeful attempt to keep the Di loons away from the wedding but what it's actually done is to cause confusion. Charles and Camilla haven't lied - their press people have. They've simply made a mistake because they didn't look into the full constitutional possibilities of what they were suggesting. This is why we need a properly written constitution - to sort things like these out.
__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
  #734  
Old 01-17-2007, 05:35 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 589
People do not have short memories. As a matter of fact, Camilla is Prince Charles's legal wife now. Realistic people should accept the truth that Camilla will be Queen Consort when Charles succeeds after his mother. It is a general rule and I think people with general ideas about the history of British kings and Queens shall have knowledge on that.
Clarence House made their mistake in the later part of the statement and that's it. As Robert Lacey said, he noticed the wording of "intend" and he thought that part is interesting because it implied that Charles will be the King rather than the Princess Consort matter. He is a historian and he knows that Camilla will be Queen.
  #735  
Old 01-17-2007, 06:09 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Realistic people should accept the truth that Camilla will be Queen Consort when Charles succeeds after his mother.
I dont see anyone being unrealistic. Im certain everyone who has read these threads understands perfectly what is and what is not. As for the rest, it should be made perfectly clear that the intent of those who claimed it, has since been revoked if that is the case.

Quote:
Clarence House made their mistake in the later part of the statement and that's it.
Who says its a mistake? By saying this you seem to insist it is not possible and well, it certainly is.

Quote:
He is a historian and he knows that Camilla will be Queen.
I'm not a historian and I know Camilla shall legally become Queen upon the succession of her husband. You don't have to be a historian to undertsand the dynamics of this very interesting situation.
  #736  
Old 01-17-2007, 06:11 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avalon
You've just ruined all my hopes of passing as Royalty in Britain!
On the other hand there is nothing to stop you NOT using a title you are entitled to, in everyday life.
  #737  
Old 01-17-2007, 06:12 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
I believe it was nothing more than a hopeful attempt to keep the Di loons away from the wedding.
If that were the case its pretty pathetic, Sam. A very naïve execution of 'problem solving'.
  #738  
Old 01-17-2007, 06:17 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,859
Well, what was the Duchess of Cornwall thing for? It was the same thing - to stop obssessives storming Clarence House with flaming torches. It's a typical PR thing - please everyone but later you realise the problem with your populist solution. In this case, they said she'd been known as Princess Consort which got the populist bit out of the way but then they realised the legal issues which is the flaw in the plan. So, either they were very green and honestly didn't know she couldn't be known as PC without an act of parliament OR they did know and hoped that nobody would mention it publicly until after Charles's accession.
__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
  #739  
Old 01-17-2007, 06:26 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,978
So all in all, another hole proof plan huh?.lol.

Quote:
to stop obssessives storming Clarence House with flaming torches
I've always thought it was done out of Camilla's good judgement and understanding. How interesting it is that many view the same circumstance, yet so different are their observations.
  #740  
Old 01-17-2007, 06:27 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,859
Oh yes, it was Camilla's good judgement and understanding. But IMO it was the understanding that the followers of the Diana cult would never let her rest if she used her Princess of Wales title.
__________________

__________________
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 2016 catherine middleton style countess of wessex coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events dom duarte duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll felipe vi grand duchess josephine-charlotte grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king carl gustaf's birthday 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 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 mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion 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


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 03:14 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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