The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #821  
Old 01-17-2007, 07:50 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henri M.
No, but she still is a Peer's wife, of course.
It is irrelevant because she is The Sovereign and fount of honour, which takes precedence over all other ranks and titles. She is The Queen.
__________________

  #822  
Old 01-17-2007, 07:52 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,859
As I've said before, you have to put it into perspective. If we have Gordon Brown in power, he won't bother with legislation. He wouldn't see it as important, him being a raging republican and all and Charles would be wise to keep his head down and not give Mr Brown any chance whatsoever to interfere with the Monarchy. Mr Cameron might be more sympathetic and co-operative, however, we're all forgetting one thing. Legislation goes through the Commons and the Lords. 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.
__________________

__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
  #823  
Old 01-17-2007, 07:54 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
I can't see the legislation even making it to the floor of the Commons, never mind the Lords. There is no point in altering the precedents for one woman and creating more problems down the road for future Consorts.

She's already married and holds equal rank with her husband. And that should be the end of it.
  #824  
Old 01-17-2007, 07:56 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,859
Well, it does beg the question, will future Queen Consorts be known as Princess Consorts just because a few politicians don't like them very much? I mean, it just affects too much. If you're going to muck about with titles, why not change the title of King to President and end it all?
__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
  #825  
Old 01-17-2007, 08:02 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
I agree. There is too much at stake for the monarchy and, after all, at the end of the day, the royal perogative is exercised in practice by the Prime Minister. So why diminsh the power of the monarchy and the perogative?

I just don't see it happening. If they were that worried, The Queen would have told Prince Charles the price of marrying Camilla would be a Bill of Renunciation passed by Parliament in favor of William as heir to the throne.

It's ridiculous to assert Camilla was good enough to hold equal rank as Princess of Wales, but is not good enough to be Queen. What was the point of allowing the marriage to take place?

A morganatic marriage is not the reality.
  #826  
Old 01-17-2007, 08:04 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
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.
I'd have more faith in that sentiment BeatrixFan, if the House of Lords was still made up of hereditary peers.

But a Dame Margaret Thatcher or a Lord Edward Heath I don't think will care that much whether Camilla is Queen or Princess Consort.
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
  #827  
Old 01-17-2007, 08:13 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,859
Are you kidding? Baroness Thatcher is a devoted monarchist. Sir Ted Heath never sat in the Lords and he won't sit now as he's dead. The Lords always side with the monarchy - once the monarchy goes, they go.
__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
  #828  
Old 01-17-2007, 08:16 PM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,762
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.
__________________
"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........ "
  #829  
Old 01-17-2007, 08:22 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Charleston, SC, United States
Posts: 341
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirhon11234
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.
I agree. She's legally married to Charles. To deny her the title of Queen Consort would be as discriminatory as denying the Duchess of Windsor the "HRH".
  #830  
Old 01-17-2007, 08:24 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,859
Well, you basically defeat the object of a hereditary monarchy and any institution will fall if the basic rules that govern it are taken away on a whim. If the big wigs behind the scenes at Buck House really want to throw away 1000 years of history based on the events of two decades, then maybe they don't care as much as their employers thought they did.
__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
  #831  
Old 01-17-2007, 08:55 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sister Morphine
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.
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.
  #832  
Old 01-17-2007, 09:11 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Royale
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.
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?
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
  #833  
Old 01-17-2007, 09:14 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel
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?
I advise you to read back through the thread to find the answer to your question.
  #834  
Old 01-17-2007, 09:23 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,387
Oh I see. Then I assume that this statement of yours

Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Royale
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.
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?
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
  #835  
Old 01-17-2007, 09:36 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel
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?
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'm of a diplomatic mind so except a situation for how it is and at this point in time, its intended Camilla will be Princess Consort. I do expect what's intended to be carried out but if it is not (and for reasons that would no doubt be of relevant significance to withhold any further action) then one must except it for how it is.

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.
  #836  
Old 01-17-2007, 09:45 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Royale
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.
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.
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
  #837  
Old 01-17-2007, 09:58 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel
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.
And I have never questioned this or the process involved, but I have mainatined that it is possible and where there's a will there's a way and what has been proposed is something which can be obtained.

Quote:
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?
But what have I? Sorry I don't follow you here. Do you mean that more shall be done than simply having Charles pronounce his wife as Princess Consort, or that that is all that's needed?

Quote:
Laws are particularly annoying consistent at times and in this case are consistent regardless of a person's reputation be obtained.
Again, I'm not quite sure what you mean.
  #838  
Old 01-17-2007, 10:03 PM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,762
Parliament would have to strip Camilla of her rightful title of Queen before the new King can give her ANY title; Princess Consort, Bozo The Clown, Queen of the Ooompa-Loompa People....whatever. Before any of that can happen, Parliament MUST strip her of her title.


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.


They knew that when Charles became King, she'd be Queen and if they didn't want that to happen, why let them get married in the first place? You'll let them marry, but you won't let her have all that comes with being married to him? Poor form.
__________________
"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........ "
  #839  
Old 01-17-2007, 10:09 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
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.
Well, that actually happens in all forms of government (Absolute monarchy and Comunist rule aside).

And you cannot categorically state that it will not happen (well you technically can of course .lol.)

For me, things are never one sided. To say it will not happen is a naïve outlook.

I understand most clearly what's possible and what is not and I am well aware that Camilla may very well be crowned HM the Queen Consort and if that is the case then I will rest with the good (?) judgement shown by those at the time. I just don't recognise (how could I? How could anyone), at this point in time, that the insistence on what has been disclosed is of a fruitless conception. And why? Because it is not. It is a feasible alternative.
  #840  
Old 01-17-2007, 10:31 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
I don't think we're talking about having the HM title removed. We're all pretty much agreed that it would take legislation, and I think we're all pretty much agreed that it won't happen.

The question is whether, and how, the HRH Princess Consort handle might be given to her in addition to the HM the Queen handle, so she can be known by the former style while also holding the latter.

However, as I asked earlier in the thread, would that mean she wouldn't take part in the coronation ceremony - she'd still be Queen even if she wasn't referred to as such, and this isn't a morganatic marriage (or so we're being assured). What would it mean in practical terms for what she does after Charles becomes king? Because if there was any hint at all that this lower grade of title was being used as an excuse for her to not undertake the tasks and duties that a Queen Consort would be expected to shoulder, there'd be a lot of bad feeling from the taxpayers. The papers are already trying to label her as a lazy parasite, and I'm sure they'll be looking for any excuse to stir things up after the accession. If she does get crowned and takes on the full range of ceremonial and other duties, it does make me wonder why they'd bother to go through this Princess Consort stuff at all. There are some fairly sensible reasons for her to be called the Duchess of Cornwall rather than the Princess of Wales, but it does strike me that they've managed to turn a short-term advantage into a long-term disadvantage with this Princess Consort stuff.
__________________

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 kate middleton king abdullah ii king carl gustaf and queen silvia 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 marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats princess stephanie queen elizabeth 90 birthday 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 satan 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 11:38 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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