The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #861  
Old 01-18-2007, 05:25 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Quote:
I think Princess Marina continued to be referred to as Princess Marina when she became Duchess of Kent. Not sure if that was official or just the way the press and the public referred to her, though
She was known as The Duchess of Kent although I have a few newspapers from the 40s and 50s and one has a picture of Marina attending a production of "Anthony and Cleopatra". Althought she's referred to by the journalist as Her Royal Highness and then later as just The Duchess of Kent, the comments from the public are all aimed at 'Princess Marina'. For example, "One lady said, 'Princess Marina always looks so lovely'". It's the same really as people referring to Anne as 'Princess Anne' and not "The Princess Royal".
__________________

__________________
  #862  
Old 01-18-2007, 05:33 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sister Morphine
She will be Queen, he will be King and people will just have to accept that.
Yes, that's where my problem lies. The Prince of Wales is the next king. But with this downgrading stuff of his own wife he seems not to be sure of that fact. He suddenly seems only to pretend to be the next king. Kings and their wifes, their queens should reign with a bit of self-assurance and out of the certainty that their position is theirs and theirs alone. The witch-hunt Camilla has been through makes it understandible that she is not so self-assured and probably is content with being just a HRH but in the interest of the greater office which Charles as heir apparent represents, they should go with the tradition from which Charles's right and claim derives - which is a right and no pretense! So: either Camilla will be queen and represents that office and supports her husband's claim, or I will stop to respect this couple. And my guess is that a lot of Britons don't want a wife of their king who is not his queen though she is his legally wedded wife. She belittles herself, her husband belittles her and thus people will belittle them. No idea where this might end but am afraid of this course of action.
__________________

__________________
'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.
  #863  
Old 01-18-2007, 06:31 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 158
I have exactly the opposite view. If Camilla is referred to as "Queen" when her husband ascends the throne, I will not be able to respect them in the way that I would hope to.

I can fully accept that Camilla is Charles' wife and will be his consort when the time comes. I am not a particular supporter of the pair, but I admire Camilla. She has been through a great deal to come to where she is today.

But I respect more the quality of humility. Charles and Camilla cannot pretend that their love affair has been conducted in ideal circumstances over the years and, while I don't think they should be continually punished for this (they have in fact acknowledged these circumstances during their wedding blessing), I do not think and never will, that the title "Queen Consort" is appropriate. That is the way I feel and time will not change this for me.
__________________
  #864  
Old 01-18-2007, 06:39 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
She's the legal wife of the King. She must be Queen. You can't pick and choose. We get what we're given and if she's good enough to a Princess, she's good enough to be Queen. Should future Queen Consorts have to sit a morality test to see if they make the grade? Would you have denied Anne Boleyn the title of Queen because of the circumstances of her marriage to the King?
__________________
  #865  
Old 01-18-2007, 06:42 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,983
At least Cam'z wont loose her head .lol.
__________________
  #866  
Old 01-18-2007, 06:55 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg
The 1937 Letters Patent were entirely within the will of The Sovereign as fount of honour. The King could, and did, deny The Duke's wife and children the right to share his rank of HRH since his descendants' statutory rights to the succession were removed in the Act of Abdication.
This is tangental to the main issue, but the bearing of the style of Royal Highness isn't connected to one's rights of succession. For example, Prince Michael of Kent may have lost his place in the succession due to the Act of Settlement, but that had no bearing on his continuing position as a Prince of the United Kingdom with the style of HRH, nor his Roman Catholic wife becoming an HRH on marriage. I don't think anyone will believe the HRH was denied to Wallis on the premise that any (unborn) descendants had no rights of succession.

The legality of the denial of the HRH to Wallis has occupied lawyers for 70 years, and current opinion seems to be that it doesn't stand up. The issue raises the question of whether the Sovereign can override Common Law and established precendent (of a wife sharing her husband's styles and titles) by Royal Decree (in this case Letters Patent). As Elspeth has pointed out, the notion that by abdicating the Throne the new Duke of Windsor somehow ceased to be a Prince and an HRH and needed to be "recreated" Royal is ridiculous. Nevertheless, they got away with it using smoke and mirrors and achieved their aim, which was solely to deny the HRH to the Duke's intended wife.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
  #867  
Old 01-18-2007, 07:25 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Obviously it is possible to become a foreign queen and stay a princess of the UK - from the Act of Settlement, 1701

"Princess Elizabeth, late Queen of Bohemia" - they don't say Her Majesty, the late Queen of Bohemia but the "most excellent Princess Elizabeth, late Queen of Bohemia, daughter of our late sovereign lord King James the First, of happy memory"...
__________________
'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.
  #868  
Old 01-18-2007, 09:23 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren
This is tangental to the main issue, but the bearing of the style of Royal Highness isn't connected to one's rights of succession. For example, Prince Michael of Kent may have lost his place in the succession due to the Act of Settlement, but that had no bearing on his continuing position as a Prince of the United Kingdom with the style of HRH, nor his Roman Catholic wife becoming an HRH on marriage. I don't think anyone will believe the HRH was denied to Wallis on the premise that any (unborn) descendants had no rights of succession.

The legality of the denial of the HRH to Wallis has occupied lawyers for 70 years, and current opinion seems to be that it doesn't stand up. The issue raises the question of whether the Sovereign can override Common Law and established precendent (of a wife sharing her husband's styles and titles) by Royal Decree (in this case Letters Patent). As Elspeth has pointed out, the notion that by abdicating the Throne the new Duke of Windsor somehow ceased to be a Prince and an HRH and needed to be "recreated" Royal is ridiculous. Nevertheless, they got away with it using smoke and mirrors and achieved their aim, which was solely to deny the HRH to the Duke's intended wife.
I agree, but the Government of the day agreed with Lord Wigram it was best to deny Wallis royal rank to be consistent with the Act of Abdication. Keep in mind the Abdication itself has also been questioned since, in law, The King could marry whomever he wished without approval of his Ministers.

There is no question The Sovereign can confer, withhold or remove any rank and title as fount of honour, with the exception of a Queen Consort.
__________________
  #869  
Old 01-18-2007, 11:31 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg
The 1937 Letters Patent were entirely within the will of The Sovereign as fount of honour. The King could, and did, deny The Duke's wife and children the right to share his rank of HRH since his descendants' statutory rights to the succession were removed in the Act of Abdication.
The 1937 Letters Patent contradicted the 1917 Letters Patent of George V, conferring HRH's on the children and grandchildren of the sovereign. There was nothing in the 1917 wording to suggest that HRH applied only to individuals in the line of succession (and as we've seen with Prince Michael of Kent, that isn't actually the case). As the son of a king, Edward was HRH The Prince Edward from the instant he abdicated. He hadn't given up his HRH; all the abdication had done, in effect, was to declare the monarch King Edward VIII legally dead. It took away the man's HM, but it didn't stop him being the son of George V and hence entitled to his HRH.

The point here was that Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth weren't going to wear the notion of HRH the Duchess of Windsor, and it was a case of doing whatever was needed in order to make it so. The fact that they managed to create a morganatic marriage a few months after Edward VIII was told that morganatic marriages weren't legal in the UK just goes to show what depths they were prepared to stoop to. If Edward VIII had decided to abdicate for reasons unconnected with a divorced woman and had been married to a sweet young thing from the upper reaches of the aristocracy, there'd have been an HRH the Duchess of Windsor without any of this manoeuvring.

As long as George VI could issue Letters Patent based on something as flimsy as Edward no longer being in the line of succession and on some sort of nonexistent morganatic state, Charles can, I assume, issue Letters Patent creating Camilla HRH the Princess Consort as well as being HM the Queen Consort. It makes every bit as much sense, and at least it doesn't contradict the law of the land. Those 1937 Letters Patent were just the legalese expression of some downright uncharitable vindictiveness, and IMO they'd be a rotten precedent for anyone wanting to do the right thing.

Having said that, I don't think the Princess Consort business is a good idea anyway, but I just don't think it's impossible if you have clever enough lawyers and a King who wants it to be done (assuming he does).
__________________
  #870  
Old 01-18-2007, 12:41 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
It's not the same thing, Elspeth. Once Charles is The Sovereign, Camilla is Queen Consort, which is very different than the situation Edward VIII was dealing with. He wasn't married to Wallis yet and the question was what would her status be upon marriage to the King. Could he make her a Duchess or Princess instead of Queen? The answer from the Government and Dominions was no.....unless legislation was passed allowing him to marry morganatically.

The Act of Abdication included Edward's right to marry whomever he wished without approval of The King under the Royal Marriages Act, which certainly was contrary to all precedent for members of the royal family within the line of succession.

The issue of his wife's status was automatic in law (she was HRH The Princess Edward upon marriage), but The King refused to recognize her as befitting of royal rank. The Government agreed it was best to find a way to deny Wallis the style to forestall the possibility of yet another divorce on her part, in which she could demand being HRH.

We have to remember this was 1936, not 2006. A twice-divorced woman becoming Queen Consort or even HRH Princess of the UK was pretty shocking at the time. I am not agreeing with what took place, but it wasn't so surprising they found a way to make her a morganatic wife.
__________________
  #871  
Old 01-18-2007, 01:02 PM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
I wonder if the best solution to the whole problem is to connect Camilla's fate as queen or no queen to that of William's bride?

You know - I believe the problem is based in the Diana/Charles/Camilla-triangle: Diana was never to be queen, so why should Camilla be one?

But once you open up the question if the wife of the heir apparent should be only Princess Consort on the ascession of her husband to the throne, you put it in the range of Camilla-William's princess. Will William's wife become a Princess Consort as well?

I bet even the die-hard Diana-fans would not want to deprive William's wife of her title as queen, even if that means allowing Camilla to be queen, too!
__________________
'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.
  #872  
Old 01-18-2007, 01:29 PM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avareenah
But I respect more the quality of humility. Charles and Camilla cannot pretend that their love affair has been conducted in ideal circumstances over the years and, while I don't think they should be continually punished for this (they have in fact acknowledged these circumstances during their wedding blessing), I do not think and never will, that the title "Queen Consort" is appropriate. That is the way I feel and time will not change this for me.

So? She's his wife. She's entitled to be Queen. Their past behavior, no matter how much people may disagree with it, does not take away from the fact that they are husband and wife and she is legally entitled to share in his titles. When he is King, she will be Queen. That's how it goes. If past indiscretions in people's lives kept them from assuming rightful titles.....there would be very few titled people in this world. That because the two have nothing to do with each other. Queen Consort is for the wife of the King. If she's the wife of the King......and she's not Queen Consort.....well then what is she? She can't have a style that is not equal to what she is.


I'll say it again; if her becoming Queen and using the style Queen Consort was going to be a moral sticking point, they never should have been allowed to wed. Someone should have forseen this nonsense and decided to stop it before it started.
__________________
"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........ "
  #873  
Old 01-18-2007, 02:12 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg
It's not the same thing, Elspeth. Once Charles is The Sovereign, Camilla is Queen Consort, which is very different than the situation Edward VIII was dealing with. He wasn't married to Wallis yet and the question was what would her status be upon marriage to the King. Could he make her a Duchess or Princess instead of Queen? The answer from the Government and Dominions was no.....unless legislation was passed allowing him to marry morganatically.

The Act of Abdication included Edward's right to marry whomever he wished without approval of The King under the Royal Marriages Act, which certainly was contrary to all precedent for members of the royal family within the line of succession.

The issue of his wife's status was automatic in law (she was HRH The Princess Edward upon marriage), but The King refused to recognize her as befitting of royal rank. The Government agreed it was best to find a way to deny Wallis the style to forestall the possibility of yet another divorce on her part, in which she could demand being HRH.

We have to remember this was 1936, not 2006. A twice-divorced woman becoming Queen Consort or even HRH Princess of the UK was pretty shocking at the time. I am not agreeing with what took place, but it wasn't so surprising they found a way to make her a morganatic wife.
I do understand the difference. However, what I'm saying is sort of in response to this part of your post: "The issue of his wife's status was automatic in law (she was HRH The Princess Edward upon marriage), but The King refused to recognize her as befitting of royal rank. The Government agreed it was best to find a way to deny Wallis the style to forestall the possibility of yet another divorce on her part, in which she could demand being HRH." If they managed to find a way around the law in order to get what they wanted then, they can manage to find a way around the law to get what they want now. They have access to the best constitutional lawyers in the land, after all.
__________________
  #874  
Old 01-18-2007, 03:37 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
I understand. But do you really think they will go that far this time around for a married woman who already holds equal rank to The Prince of Wales?

It would be incomprehensible.....but I guess anything is possible.
__________________
  #875  
Old 01-18-2007, 03:40 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
If they managed to find a way around the law in order to get what they wanted then, they can manage to find a way around the law to get what they want now. They have access to the best constitutional lawyers in the land, after all.
And keep in mind that royal rank is not governed by constitutional law (unlike the title and succession of the monarchy) and HRH is a style. Those honours are entirely at the will of The Sovereign and can be removed or conferred at any time for any reason.
__________________
  #876  
Old 01-18-2007, 08:41 PM
HRH Kerry's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Up the street,hang a left,3rd house from the corner, United States
Posts: 1,626
As much as I want Camilla to be Queen Consort, there are kings that marry and their wives are styled as Princess Consort for whatever reason. I'm sure there has to be some kind of provisions set. Look at the King of Morocco and the King of Swaziland. Maybe I shouldn't mention the latter!
__________________
Princely Family of Liechtenstein Forum
Join in on the discussions.
  #877  
Old 01-18-2007, 08:45 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Indeed. This isn't Morocco or Swaziland though. This is Britain and we do things properly here.
__________________
  #878  
Old 01-18-2007, 08:59 PM
sirhon11234's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,464
quote

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
Indeed. This isn't Morocco or Swaziland though. This is Britain and we do things properly here.
What do you mean by properly?
__________________
"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
  #879  
Old 01-18-2007, 09:10 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Why should the royal traditions in Britain follow the traditions in Swaziland and Morocco?

That doesn't make much sense.
__________________
"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
  #880  
Old 01-18-2007, 09:15 PM
sirhon11234's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,464
quote

Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel
Why should the royal traditions in Britain follow the traditions in Swaziland and Morocco?

That doesn't make much sense.
But no one said that England should follow other royal traditions. I didn't understand BeatrixFan's comment that Britain does things more properly.
__________________

__________________
"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
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 Ferguson, Duchess Of York: News and Photos Jacqueline Current Events Archive 170 09-23-2004 03:30 PM
Pavlos And Marie Chantal: Current Events December 2002 - October 2003 Julia Crown Prince Pavlos, Marie Chantal and Family 76 10-14-2003 08:40 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympics ottoman poland pom president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion princess of asturias queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:56 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]