The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #941  
Old 01-20-2007, 08:23 AM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren
Joan, Britain doesn't have Salic Law, it has male primogeniture. The rules governing Succesion to the Crown are the province of the Parliament.

Do you think that England should do what other monarchies have done and adopt equal primogeniture? Just a slight deviation from the merry-go-round.
__________________

__________________
"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........ "
  #942  
Old 01-20-2007, 08:23 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frothy
I totally agree with your other points! It is a mess and it is silly. Drop "princess consort" please and go back to Queen.
My sentiments exactly. It is a mess and a stupid one to boot! If she is not worthy to share in his rank, then he should not have married her. This way it's a degradation of a woman which is tactless, heartless and absolutely unneccessary, IMHO. There won't be more public outcry then there was before the wedding, that's for sure.

I thought it was tactful of Camilla and Charles that she or they or whoever decided she should be known as The Duchess of Cornwall. A nice geste, but nothing more. Now this Princess Consort business means that of the three involved in that sad, sad marriage traingle only one eats humble pie for the rest of her life. Diana got a Royal funeral after she died together with her latest lover, Charles will be king - and Camilla will always be denoted as the wife who is not fit to be queen. Some sort of justice!
__________________

__________________
'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.
  #943  
Old 01-20-2007, 08:25 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sister Morphine
Do you think that England should do what other monarchies have done and adopt equal primogeniture? Just a slight deviation from the merry-go-round.
The queen already did the first step towards equal primogeniture when she stated that princesses by birth have precedence of princesses by marriage. That was a clear indication that the Royal birthright exists for both genders - male and female.
__________________
'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.
  #944  
Old 01-20-2007, 08:26 AM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine
My sentiments exactly. It is a mess and a stupid one to boot! If she is not worthy to share in his rank, then he should not have married her. This way it's a degradation of a woman which is tactless, heartless and absolutely unneccessary, IMHO. There won't be more public outcry then there was before the wedding, that's for sure.

I thought it was tactful of Camilla and Charles that she or they or whoever decided she should be known as The Duchess of Cornwall. A nice geste, but nothing more. Now this Princess Consort business means that of the three involved in that sad, sad marriage traingle only one eats humble pie for the rest of her life. Diana got a Royal funeral after she died together with her latest lover, Charles will be king - and Camilla will always be denoted as the wife who is not fit to be queen. Some sort of justice!

I've bolded the parts I agree with the most emphatically. This is all an absolute nightmare and I blame them for starting it.
__________________
"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........ "
  #945  
Old 01-20-2007, 08:26 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
Sister Morphine,

Warren is absolutely right. You are not supported by the quotes you are giving, which are from the Times article I quoted in its entirety earlier.

What I said before that we all agree on is that Camilla can't not be queen without legislation.

But what you now keep posting is that without legislation, Camilla can't be Queen and Princess Consort at the same time. You keep posting she'd have to have the Queenship removed first to be made Princess Consort.

But both the Times article and my other quote from the same woman, the spokeswoman for the Department of Constitutional Affairs, refute that. Both articles say Camilla CAN be Queen and Princess Consort AT THE SAME TIME without any change in the law.

You quote here

Quote:
Asked about the position of other countries where the Prince of Wales would become head of state on his succession, the spokeswoman replied: “I think you are right in thinking it would require legislation for her not to be Queen.
But that paragraph finishes "However she is not going to be known as Queen, she will be known as Princess Consort".

This matches with the same woman's earlier quote that she can be PC without any change in the law and that there are no moves to strip her of her title as Queen, meaning, in sum, that the government asserts she can be both at the same time.

For all your posts to Joan I am glad to say I absolutely agree with you in all respects!

Edit to add

Quote:
Do you think that England should do what other monarchies have done and adopt equal primogeniture? Just a slight deviation from the merry-go-round.
Yes I do but I'm sure that'll be good for fifty pages in a new thread! :) I also agree with Jo that QEII has taken the first step in altering the precedence.
  #946  
Old 01-20-2007, 08:28 AM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine
The queen already did the first step towards equal primogeniture when she stated that princesses by birth have precedence of princesses by marriage. That was a clear indication that the Royal birthright exists for both genders - male and female.

I wasn't aware of that, but I was more thinking along the lines of the throne. Elizabeth is Queen because her parents had no sons. It would affect William and his wife first. If their first child is a girl, should she inherit the throne outright whether she has a younger brother or not?
__________________
"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........ "
  #947  
Old 01-20-2007, 08:32 AM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frothy
Sister Morphine,

Warren is absolutely right. You are not supported by the quotes you are giving, which are from the Times article I quoted in its entirety earlier.

What I said before that we all agree on is that Camilla can't not be queen without legislation.

But what you now keep posting is that without legislation, Camilla can't be Queen and Princess Consort at the same time. You keep posting she'd have to have the Queenship removed first to be made Princess Consort.

But both the Times article and my other quote from the same woman, the spokeswoman for the Department of Constitutional Affairs, refute that. Both articles say Camilla CAN be Queen and Princess Consort AT THE SAME TIME without any change in the law.

You quote here



But that paragraph finishes "However she is not going to be known as Queen, she will be known as Princess Consort".

This matches with the same woman's earlier quote that she can be PC without any change in the law and that there are no moves to strip her of her title as Queen, meaning, in sum, that the government asserts she can be both at the same time.

For all your posts to Joan I am glad to say I absolutely agree with you in all respects!
Then why do I keep reading that in order for her to take a lesser title than the one she has by law, her Queen title must be taken away by law first? Are the people I'm reading quotes from lying or am I unable to read English? It doesn't matter what the rest of that paragraph states [which by the way, comes from a Times article as well.....possibly the same one you keep talking about], it still states that the only way she won't be Queen is by law. She can't be both at the same time! How can you be the unequal wife of the King and the equal wife of the King.......all at once? That construct makes absolutely 100% no sense at all.
__________________
"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........ "
  #948  
Old 01-20-2007, 08:39 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sister Morphine
Then why do I keep reading that in order for her to take a lesser title than the one she has by law, her Queen title must be taken away? Are the people I'm reading quotes from lying or am I unable to read English?
Neither one, I'm sure, there's no question of "lying" here, just different interpretations and search for proof of them.

I wondered if perhaps you had some other source quoted earlier that I have missed that states the Queenship must go for PC to be added. BranchQ also believes this, but he has not yet, I believe, offered proof of it other than his opinion, I apologise if I have missed such proof.

In trying to stop us going round in circles and clarify the debate as Warren earlier suggested, I am simply bringing forward the two separate government statements from the Department of Constitutional Affairs that Camilla can be known as Princess Consort, and remain Queen, without a change in the law.

Since these are statements by the Government and they tally with the statements of the BRF on their websites, my opinion is that those who wish to argue against what the Government and Royal Family say will happen probably ought to advance some proof or some source.

I am genuinely interested to BranchQ's view as to why the Queenship must be stripped before Princess Consort can be added when the Govt has said twice that's not so. The Govt has also said very clearly that this marriage is not morganatic. Branch has suggested a few times that the only way for Camilla to be PC would be take away the queenship with new laws then gazette her and it would be morganatic. But the Government in response to an MP's question has insisted it is not morganatic.

So for those arguing against the Govt and RF statements, I guess my question is, on what basis?
  #949  
Old 01-20-2007, 08:40 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sister Morphine
I wasn't aware of that, but I was more thinking along the lines of the throne. Elizabeth is Queen because her parents had no sons. It would affect William and his wife first. If their first child is a girl, should she inherit the throne outright whether she has a younger brother or not?
IMHO you can't change such a thing without starting it slowly as an idea. The Swedish parliament started the whole change because there simply was noone but Carl Gustaf and old, old Bertil, even though Carl Gustaf has 4 sisters. The Netherlands are notorious for their people's strive for equality, so it was just a question of time. Belgium and Norway followed suit. Now Spain, for me, was a surprise, but I've yet to see the change becomes law indeed. Denmark and britain at the moment have a bit of a reprive because the heir of the heir is male. But the discussion will start here, too, I'm convinced. But not in Braitain as long as the queen lives. Then we will see what position king Charles has and what he does or does not to further the decision.
__________________
'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.
  #950  
Old 01-20-2007, 08:45 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
Yes, we are both quoting from the same article. I also quote from an earlier AFP article posted by, I think it was Jo. Same source, the Dept of Cons. Affairs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sister Morphine
it still states that the only way she won't be Queen is by law. She can't be both at the same time!
First sentence: Yes, it sure does say that, we all agree on that. She will be Queen.

Second sentence: the article says outright that she can indeed be both at the same time. So does the other quote from the spokeswoman.

We have been discussing how exactly, by what mechanism, she could be both at the same time. Thus far the suggestion is that she would be gazetted with the title of Princess Consort and made a Princess of the UK in her own right, as Princes Albert and Philip were created Princes of the UK in their own right.

Camilla`will hold the title of Queen Consort in the right of her husband. She will be his equal wife. But she would use the title of Princess Consort that she would hold in her own personal right having been created such by her husband, the same way Elizabth created Philip Prince of the UK and Mary I created Philip of Spain (not yet King of Spain on his marriage) King Consort of England.
  #951  
Old 01-20-2007, 08:47 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine
The queen already did the first step towards equal primogeniture when she stated that princesses by birth have precedence of princesses by marriage. That was a clear indication that the Royal birthright exists for both genders - male and female.
I'm not sure how much we should read into the Queen's action here. The Household or Court (or family) Order of Precedence re-arrangement concerned the Princess Royal and Princess Alexandra. I saw the upgrading of both as a special 'mark of respect' to the Queen's daughter and to her loyal and dear widowed cousin. It is noteworthy that both Anne and Alexandra became Knights of the Garter before Andrew and Edward.

As far as I know Princess Beatrice was not given an enhanced precedence on her 18th birthday, but the situation may change if and when William and Harry marry. It will be interesting to see if the York Princesses are given precedence over the Wales wives.

However, this is a digression from the Queen Camilla discussion, and would be more appropriate for the Order of Precedence thread.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
  #952  
Old 01-20-2007, 08:48 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frothy
...and therefore the country.
A slight exaggeration perhaps (respectively).

A matter which shall be settled one way or another shall hardly throw a country into total despair. Especially given its nature (in comparison to events shaping our world).

I see all too often the issue being turned into something biblical in size of its possible ramifications and it just doesn't seem to me, incredibly likely, that the citizens of the UK shall be out in the streets, pulling out their hair and chanting Camilla's name in desperation...all because of her title.
  #953  
Old 01-20-2007, 08:48 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
Sorry - Philip of Spain was granted a consort's title in right of his wife, so not an exact paralell, but Princes Albert and Philip were created Princes of the UK in their own right. If the Queen died and Philip remarried his wife would be HRH the Duchess of Edinburgh - it is his title and not dependent upon his marriage to the Queen.
  #954  
Old 01-20-2007, 08:49 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
I take the rebuke! I suppose that like many ardent royalists and also Camilla fans, I despair of the ancient title of Queen Consort being mucked about in this way. But will the public care? I hope so....
  #955  
Old 01-20-2007, 08:57 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frothy

So for those arguing against the Govt and RF statements, I guess my question is, on what basis?
Common sense? No, don't laugh. I'm serious about it. It is against all ideas that are the basis for Royal titles to confer the title of Princess Consort on the woman who is legally queen.

You could have made the queen of England the princess of Wales in 1301 because she did not be the princess of Wales before - Wales was an independant princedom before and was conquered by England. So one could have argued that the possession of Wales made the king of England the prince of Wales in addition - and his queen the princess of Wales, without merging these titles with the Crown. But it happened not that way.

King Charles II. recreated his aunt Elizabeth Stuart, the Queen Consort of Bohemia and Electress-Consort of the Palatinate a princess of England and Scotland (that is: he negated her forfeit of her inheritance rights and restored these rights to her in order to bring his cousin, admiral (Cavalier Prince) Rupert of the Palatinate back in the line of succession. Unfortunately this prince (and all his brothers and their legitimate, male, protestant descendants) died earlier, so his sister Sophia was the next.

But htese are examples who bear no real similarity to the current situation.

It's as esay as that: Camilla will be queen but will be known as Princess Consort. What does that say about her and her status? Exactly.
__________________
'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.
  #956  
Old 01-20-2007, 09:00 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frothy
I take the rebuke! I suppose that like many ardent royalists and also Camilla fans, I despair of the ancient title of Queen Consort being mucked about in this way. But will the public care? I hope so....
Care? Many shall, no doubt. Then again, many probably won't either.

I support Camilla (contrary to what some may believe), but I role with the punches

What will be, will be Frothy

BTW: Thanks for not taking my response with offense. It wasn't intended to be offensive or argumentative.
  #957  
Old 01-20-2007, 09:02 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frothy
.. I despair of the ancient title of Queen Consort being mucked about in this way. But will the public care? I hope so....
Will feminists and equal rights campaigners be protesting in the streets if King Charles announces the degrading of his wife's "status" as one of the first acts of the new reign?
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
  #958  
Old 01-20-2007, 09:10 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren

As far as I know Princess Beatrice was not given an enhanced precedence on her 18th birthday, but the situation may change if and when William and Harry marry. It will be interesting to see if the York Princesses are given precedence over the Wales wives.
Just an aside (my last one..): The York princesses will never be the daughters sof the souverain, but William and Harry's wifes will be the daughters-in-law of the souverain. Thus they will have precedence, anyway. But once William has a daughter and married sons, we'll see if queen Elizabeth created a precedence (if I live to see that day!)...
__________________
'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.
  #959  
Old 01-20-2007, 09:15 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
Warren, hey! Count me as one of those feminists! But yes, it rankles. As Sister Morphine has said, it makes a value judgement on Camilla's personal moral behaviour in marriage but not Charles's, you note.

Perhaps they should sew a big red "A" onto her coronation robes?

Jo of Palatine, you are absolutely right, there's no common sense to it at all, and I don't laugh at that one bit. But in my view there is no common sense in Prince of Wales/Duchess of Cornwall. Alas, "it must make common sense" has no legal standing in Britain! If only it did....

Madame R, I took no offence at all, clearly you intended none. Goodness, I chose the handle "Frothy" because to me that's what TRF are and why I love them... this is my relaxation, to debate the minutia of titles and gazetting and Elizabeth of York etc away from the office, precisely because in the end it doesn't much matter, yet I am a traditionalist and see the monarchy as an important part of the "soul" of England, part of the warp and weft of its history.

Most posters here weren't that concerned with "Lady Louise", I sure was. I see the writing on the wall and don't like it one bit.
  #960  
Old 01-20-2007, 09:21 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine
Just an aside (my last one..): The York princesses will never be the daughters sof the souverain, but William and Harry's wifes will be the daughters-in-law of the souverain. Thus they will have precedence, anyway.
But neither was Princess Alexandra the daughter of a Sovereign, and she was elevated to become the third Royal Lady in the land after the Queen and the Princess Royal. Alexandra now has precedence before the wives of the eldest and third sons of the Sovereign. (NB this does not relate to the Official Order of Precedence in England.)
__________________

__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
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 jew kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king philip 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 estelle princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats princess stéphanie's evening gowns 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 royal visits sally bedell smith 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 09:31 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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