The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #761  
Old 01-17-2007, 07:40 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,859
Quote:
It's there. It's sourced. I don't get what you don't accept, do you argue that the Times made up the quotation?
Sorry luv, I don't actually care what it says anymore. You've won this one. I just can't be bothered.
__________________

__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
  #762  
Old 01-17-2007, 07:50 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
BF, I'm happy to call a "let's agree to disagree" truce if you want because we'll never convince each other but I want to clear some stuff up

Quote:
For the love of Joe Dolan! I'm not trying to pull your chain, I couldn't give Harold Bishop's left earlobe to be quite honest but it does puzzle me a) why you're disregarding evidence from the Lord Chancellor and his office, from Buckingham Palace and Clarence House and numerous constitutional experts and b) why you change the subject whenever we question your "source".
What evidence, where? I'm not trying to be stubborn here. You said the evidence was in the Panorama show so I watched the entire thing, start to finish, and (sad, sad person confesses) got so caught up in this silly debate that I stayed up way past my bedtime to do it. But there wasn't any mention of it in the show except to back up what I've been arguing.

Re: "my source" I never said I had one other than what I am publicly linking to. I said (and probably shouldn't have, it was sheer frustration) that I am sort of (very distantly indeed) involved professionally. I can't elaborate without giving away my id and don't want to and you can safely ignore that.

When I say "I have cited sources" I'm not talking about some mysterious robed figure from the royal household or the Lord Chancellor's office. I'm talking about the publicly available

a) article from the Times now reprinted in full with link and quote from the D of CA

b) websites of the BRF and the Prince of Wales/Duchess of Cornwall which are of course also government websites.

These aren't my private sources they are open public ones. If you have some equivalent link, or BranchQ does, to the Lord Chancellor saying that legislation will be needed not just to remove the queenship but also to create her Princess Consort then please, do give it to me and I will issue a fulsome and crawling apology.

All the proof thus far publicly available says legislation needed to change her status as Queen. I don't see anything else from anyone else but I will acknowlegde it the second it's posted, I promise you!

Otherwise agree to disagree and say with me "May the Queen live forever, Amen!"
__________________

  #763  
Old 01-17-2007, 07:57 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,476
Reduce the argument to its basics:

• Can Camilla be stripped of her Queenly title? No, not without legislation (we are all agreed on this).

• Can a new title be created by Letters Patent? Yes, we know the Sovereign can create new titles.

Which leads to:

• Can such a newly-created title be "overlaid" on top of 'HM Queen Camilla' so that she "is known as" HRH Princess Consort? This is the part we should be discussing.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
  #764  
Old 01-17-2007, 08:00 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren
Reduce the argument to its basics:

• Can such a newly-created title be "overlaid" on top of 'HM Queen Camilla' so that she "is known as" HRH Princess Consort? This is the part we should be discussing.
Well as Lord/Lady whatever, you can choose to be known as anything, you just can't promote yourself. For all legal matters you would still have to be shown as Lord/Lady whatever, with the aka detailed.

I don't know whether the same rules apply to a British Queen.
  #765  
Old 01-17-2007, 08:08 AM
srivishnu's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Seremban, Malaysia
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren
Reduce the argument to its basics:

• Can Camilla be stripped of her Queenly title? No, not without legislation (we are all agreed on this).

• Can a new title be created by Letters Patent? Yes, we know the Sovereign can create new titles.

Which leads to:

• Can such a newly-created title be "overlaid" on top of 'HM Queen Camilla' so that she "is known as" HRH Princess Consort? This is the part we should be discussing.
Yes,a queen can hold or carry many titles,
  #766  
Old 01-17-2007, 08:18 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
Warren: proving once again that brevity is the soul of wit.
  #767  
Old 01-17-2007, 08:48 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon
On the other hand there is nothing to stop you NOT using a title you are entitled to, in everyday life.
Yes, but there needed to be legislation to do that - just think of Tony Benn. From wikipedia: The Peerage Act 1963, allowing renunciation of peerages, was given the Royal Assent and became law shortly after 6 p.m. on July 31, 1963. Benn was the first peer to renounce his title, at 6.22 p.m. that day.

Okay, you may argue that being a member of praliament was not everyday life....
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
  #768  
Old 01-17-2007, 08:51 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
You call her Princess Consort, I'll call her Queen and we can all run under a bus together.
.lol. Oh Sam....
  #769  
Old 01-17-2007, 08:54 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine
Yes, but there needed to be legislation to do that - just think of Tony Benn. From wikipedia: The Peerage Act 1963, allowing renunciation of peerages, was given the Royal Assent and became law shortly after 6 p.m. on July 31, 1963. Benn was the first peer to renounce his title, at 6.22 p.m. that day.

Okay, you may argue that being a member of praliament was not everyday life....
The difference here Jo, was that Tony Benn wanted to renounce his peerage.

It wasn't a case of him just wanting to be known as, he was desperate to continue to stand in parliament, something he could not do as a peer of the realm.

If politics were not involved he could have been aka Bozo Benn.
  #770  
Old 01-17-2007, 09:20 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frothy
Avreenah, thank you!

Just about everybody accepts that Camilla will be known as Princess Consort when the Queen dies. The govt says so. Buck/Clarence House say so on their official websites. The BBC says so. The Times says so. Everybody says so!
That's not true. Constitutional experts discuss exactly this situation in legal journals. It's very probably true that legislation is needed to strip the title and rank of queen from Camilla, once her husband acceeds to the throne.

The constitutional question is: can the queen be a HRH? History shows that all wifes of kings (when they were still alive at the time of the accession) held the title of queen and used it. The case of queen Caroline shows that the king cannot strip his wife of this title and rank.

The case of the male consorts of British queens show that there is no fixed way to deal with that situation - each queen did it her way. It is possible to let the prince keep his own Royal title instead of giving him a British title (Georg of Denmark, husband of Queen Anne, though he had a British title prior to his marriage in addition but received none on his marriage), he can be created a duke and /or Prince of the UK (Prince Philip), he can even be made king consort (Philip of Spain, husband of Queen Mary Tudor). As there is no written constitution and there is no precedence, the question is: can the king create the queen a princess? Is this within his rights? Or does he need legislation for that? And what does that mean for the next queen-to-be? That's the question and it is not yet decided, IMHO - as legal experts are still writing about it.
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
  #771  
Old 01-17-2007, 09:39 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren
Can such a newly-created title be "overlaid" on top of 'HM Queen Camilla' so that she "is known as" HRH Princess Consort? This is the part we should be discussing.
She cannot hold the style and rank of Royal Highness as Her Majesty because the precedent and position is lower than being Queen, again implying a morganatic marriage where none exists.

Did Queen Elizabeth II retain her birthstyle of HRH Princess Elizabeth upon ascension to the throne? No, it merged with the Crown.

Did Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother retain her rank and style of HRH The Princess Albert, The Duchess of York when George VI became King? No, because she no longer was the wife of HRH The Duke of York, but the wife of The King.

There is simply no constitutional mechanism for a Queen Consort to hold a lesser rank while still retaining her place and position as HM. It would be a morganatic marriage, which has never existed for The Sovereign.
  #772  
Old 01-17-2007, 09:42 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Here I found an article which gives a bit more information (from AFP, 22.3.2005 - so the info could be outdated).

However, the Department of Constitutional Affairs confirmed on Monday that Parker Bowles would be queen once Charles takes the throne.


"Technically, she will be queen"
"Technically, she will be queen," department spokesperson Zoe Campbell told AFP.
The news followed a written House of Commons question to the department by Andrew Mackinlay, a lawmaker for the ruling Labour Party, who asked whether the April 8 marriage would be "morganatic."
He was using an arcane term referring to cases in which someone of royal or noble birth marries someone of lower rank and does not share any titles.
Constitutional Affairs Minister Christopher Leslie gave a simple reply: "No".
"This is absolutely unequivocal that she automatically becomes queen when he becomes king," Mackinlay said on Monday.


No formal constitution
The Department of Constitutional Affairs stressed, however, that much of the argument was academic, given the fact that Britain has no formal constitution, just a series of laws and conventions that have evolved over the centuries.
There was no single law stating that someone with Parker Bowles's future position "will be known as queen", Campbell said.
"When you say constitutional and legal norms, a lot of it is down to convention rather than legislation, which is why she can be referred to as whatever she likes without having to change the law," she said. "She can be referred to as the Duchess of Cornwall or Princess Consort without any change to the law."
There were no moves to change the law to prevent Parker Bowles being queen, Campbell added.


Royal convention
It is royal convention that decrees that the wife of a king is known as queen, while husbands of female monarchs such as Elizabeth's spouse Prince Philip, do not become king.
This centrality of convention meant that it was simply "not true" to say Parker Bowles would eventually be queen, Prince Charles's office insisted later on Monday.
"Our position has always been that you become queen only by convention, not by statute, not by law," a spokesperson for Clarence House said.
"Our understanding is that the government agrees with our position," he said.
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
  #773  
Old 01-17-2007, 09:47 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
I quote from the above cited article:

"Our position has always been that you become queen only by convention, not by statute, not by law," a spokesperson for Clarence House said.

It seems this (is? has been? was?) the opinion of The RF: that there is no law about that the qife of the king is the queen.

But is that true?


__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
  #774  
Old 01-17-2007, 09:49 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine
As there is no written constitution and there is no precedence, the question is: can the king create the queen a princess? Is this within his rights? Or does he need legislation for that? And what does that mean for the next queen-to-be? That's the question and it is not yet decided, IMHO - as legal experts are still writing about it.
As the fount of honour and source of all enoblement, The Sovereign can create any title or rank for a commoner or member of the royal family. What The Sovereign cannot do is strip the rank and title of a Queen Consort and grant her a lower one.

That requires parliamentary intervention through legislation. Once passed, The King could then issue letters patent creating Camilla Mountbatten-Windsor a Princess of the UK with the rank of HRH.
  #775  
Old 01-17-2007, 09:51 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine
I quote from the above cited article:

"Our position has always been that you become queen only by convention, not by statute, not by law," a spokesperson for Clarence House said.

It seems this (is? has been? was?) the opinion of The RF: that there is no law about that the qife of the king is the queen.

But is that true?


Total baloney. The precedents of 1936 makes this a total fallacy, if not outright deception. If true, than Edward VIII could have married Wallis and made her HRH The Duchess of Lancaster as Churchill suggested.

It's nonsense.
  #776  
Old 01-17-2007, 09:58 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg

There is simply no constitutional mechanism for a Queen Consort to hold a lesser rank while still retaining her place and position as HM.
But king William III. retained all his Dutch titles and offices (such as that of the Prince of Orange and the Statholder) while he was king of England and Scotland. That's what the official webpage of the Dutch Royal family says.

Where does it say that the king cannot be a peer? If so, then the queen regnant cannot be a peeress either. Can a queen consort? Is a princess a peeress?
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
  #777  
Old 01-17-2007, 10:00 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg
Total baloney. The precedents of 1936 makes this a total fallacy, if not outright deception. If true, than Edward VIII could have married Wallis and made her HRH The Duchess of Lancaster as Churchill suggested.

It's nonsense.
Yes, it looks that way. But if that was the way Clarence House wanted to go - then they cannot do it now. And there have been no other explanations from Clarence House since. Only that it is "intended"...
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
  #778  
Old 01-17-2007, 10:17 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
So does this not resolve the issue?

Quote:
"When you say constitutional and legal norms, a lot of it is down to convention rather than legislation, which is why she can be referred to as whatever she likes without having to change the law," she said. "She can be referred to as the Duchess of Cornwall or Princess Consort without any change to the law."

Branchq, again, if precedent meant anything Camilla would not even be Charles's wife today b/c of the "Royals can't marry civilly' precedents.

Your earlier post refers to all titles held in the right of the husband. As Queen she can't be Duchess of Cornwall.

But there is no reason why she should not be an HRH in her own right, a new title, and use that instead.

Edit to add: this would mimic the situation as I understand it in Holland where the wife of the King/husband of the Queen will be created a Prince/ss of the Netherlands in their own right.

The 'own right' would make it not morganatic.
  #779  
Old 01-17-2007, 10:27 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
The PoW was wrong to think that she would not automatically become queen however. The Times article post-dates this. She will be queen but referred to as Princess Consort.
  #780  
Old 01-17-2007, 10:29 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,859
Then what's the point in having a monarchy at all?
__________________

__________________
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 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 haakon kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander madeleine 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 princess stéphanie's daytime outfits queen elizabeth ii 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 sheikh hamdan bin mohammed 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 03:24 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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