The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1041  
Old 01-21-2007, 02:19 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
Ysbel, on Eleanor

http://homepages.internet.lu/pitpeporte/eleanor.htm

Quote:
A point not very clear is the kind of power Eleanor really sustained. The traditional views say that although both her husbands wore the title of 'Duke of Aquitaine', their policy in Aquitaine could not have been established without Eleanor's support and that they needed her consent for every decision. During some long periods, especially between 1167 and 1174, and again between 1189 and her death, she was probably the only and direct ruler of the Duchy.
If you google "Eleanor" Henry and "Duchess of Aquitaine" you will get loads on her. An interesting diversion, an interesting woman!
__________________

__________________
  #1042  
Old 01-21-2007, 02:20 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frothy
Actually, that again is inot strictly true... The Duchy of Aquitaine did not merge with the French crown, and Louis and Eleanor both styled themselves "Dux". Eleanor certainly battled with her husbands over her lands, but in 1189 she went back to Aquitaine and ruled it in her own right, setting up Assizes and doing various other things (post Queenship of England). As Duchess, she held the province with the King of France as her feudal overlord.

And what matters for the purposes of this thread was that she held and used her birthright title as "Dux" during the period she was Queen of England.
No I didn't say it merged with the French crown; I said that the French crown held ownership of it because women generally didn't possess their own property. It was perfectly possible for one lord to own two separate fiefdoms and keep them separate. I believe Henry II did that with England and Normandy. However, the Aquitaine was Eleanor's dowry when she married the King of France and women in the Middle Ages didn't hold possession of their dowry-their husbands did.

But there is too much difference between life and monarchy in the Middle Ages and now to believe realistically that the BRF is going to use Eleanor of Aquitaine as precedent for giving Camilla a title of Princess in her own right when they have a much more recent precedent of other monarchies giving wives the title of Princess in their own right.
__________________

__________________
"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
  #1043  
Old 01-21-2007, 02:23 PM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frothy
Jo, well, if you ask me, "Duchess of Cornwall" is stupid and anything other than Queen is stupid. Alas, doesn't mean it won't be done.

Ysbel, remember that no change in the law is needed, according to the Government, for Camilla to be known as PC whilst Queen, so I think the question of asking the Commonwealth doesn't arise as far as UK useage goes. It would surely be up to each Commonwealth country as to what they wanted to style her. I would be very surprised if Charles stays King of Australia for very long, but that's another thread.

If she is gazetted as Princess Consort in her own right just as Albert was made Prince Consort, I can't see any problem other than your basic "Why bother, this is inane". But Camilla being known by a lower title than Charles's is also inane IMO.

I see a difference in "Duchess of Cornwall" and "Princess Consort", but maybe that's just me. She got the title Duchess of Cornwall when she married Charles, so it's one of several titles at her disposal to use right now. Should she have styled herself Princess of Wales from the start? You could make that argument, but I also think it was gracious of her to use another style ON HER OWN ACCORD, because of its association with Diana. That showed some class on her part, seeing as how she didn't need to do it and she wouldn't have been asked to do it.

But that's as far as her graciousness should go. Princess Consort is NOT a title she would get when Charles becomes King, so her use of it is different than what she's doing right now. I'm glad we're all in agreement that the concept of her being anything but Queen is inane, I just wished the Government/RF felt the same way.
__________________
"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........ "
  #1044  
Old 01-21-2007, 02:24 PM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frothy
Jo, well, if you ask me, "Duchess of Cornwall" is stupid and anything other than Queen is stupid. Alas, doesn't mean it won't be done.

Ysbel, remember that no change in the law is needed, according to the Government, for Camilla to be known as PC whilst Queen, so I think the question of asking the Commonwealth doesn't arise as far as UK useage goes. It would surely be up to each Commonwealth country as to what they wanted to style her. I would be very surprised if Charles stays King of Australia for very long, but that's another thread.

If she is gazetted as Princess Consort in her own right just as Albert was made Prince Consort, I can't see any problem other than your basic "Why bother, this is inane". But Camilla being known by a lower title than Charles's is also inane IMO.
But we only talk about rights and privileges here. But aren't there duties as well? Like swearing that oth at her coronation? A duty to the people of Britain that a queen has to do? Doesn't she appear as someone to shirk her duty as queen?
__________________
'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.
  #1045  
Old 01-21-2007, 02:40 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frothy
Ysbel, on Eleanor

http://homepages.internet.lu/pitpeporte/eleanor.htm



If you google "Eleanor" Henry and "Duchess of Aquitaine" you will get loads on her. An interesting diversion, an interesting woman!
Yes I'm familiar with these assertions, they were brought forth in the book Eleanor and the Four Kings by Amy Kelly. But several other medieval scholars contradicted her. The only power that Eleanor was unquestionably shown to have wielded (mainly holding judgment in certain court cases) during Henry's reign was done in Henry's name. Her ultimate loss of power was being imprisoned by Henry for twelve years; she wielded influence over her sons at that time and caused Henry quite a lot of grief but she didn't hold absolute power over anything at that time.

I did my college paper on Eleanor and Henry and you're making me dig out my books again!
__________________
"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
  #1046  
Old 01-21-2007, 02:43 PM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,725
Make Camilla a princess in her own right, right now. That way she'll be HRH Princess Camilla, The Duchess of Cornwall. This way, if for some ridiculous reason the RF wants to go ahead with this Princess Consort nonsense, you're AT LEAST making some action relatively close to what Victoria did with Albert.
__________________
"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........ "
  #1047  
Old 01-21-2007, 02:51 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
Ysbel, firstly, there were plenty of women in the Middle Ages who held titles in their own right; Jadwiga, Queen of Poland, Margaret, fair Maid of Norway, several others. Secondly, Eleanor's lands were claimed by her husbands but that does not mean they ruled there. There were periods where she ruled solely over Aquitaine. The article linked to above gives the general view that Eleanor's wishes were necessary for rule in Aquitaine, the same is said in Wikipedia, etc.

Quote:
Aquitaine, as was the norm, defied the authority of Henry as Eleanor's husband
Eleanor ruled alone, by herself, in Aquitaine in 1189 and Henry was not present. He was off somewhere else.

Eleanor is merely one example; there are plenty of others. A Queen consort or Regnant, like our present Queen and Duchess of Edinburgh, can hold other titles. Without getting too much into history that is the point. Eleanor did, others did too.
__________________
  #1048  
Old 01-21-2007, 02:57 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frothy
Ysbel, remember that no change in the law is needed, according to the Government, for Camilla to be known as PC whilst Queen.
I'm not forgetting it but purposefully ignoring it because they've already tried it with the Duchess of Cornwall business and while they got away with it here because Diana was Princess of Wales and nobody wanted someone else regardless of whether it was Camilla or not to take a title so closely related to Diana, I don't think they will get away with pulling the same trick a second time with the Queen/Princess Consort business.

Everybody knows and understands why Camilla prefers to be called Duchess of Cornwall but if they come out at the accession and state that she prefers to be called Princess Consort, some MP is going to say she can't without Parliament's permission and use the announcement as rationale for opening up a debate on the state of the monarchy.

Its simply too good an opportunity for a career politician to pass up. However, I think Charles is open to changes in the monarchy anyway and if Camilla really wants to be known as Princess Consort, the most logical solution if Charles and the government want to make other changes is to come out proactively in his first year and make the changes, adding on Camilla's title as just one of many changes.

I think where you and I differ is where we see the monarchy putting its emphasis. You seem concerned with Camilla's title in isolation to other changes; I'm simply saying that there is enough indication for other changes in the monarchy both from Charles' own deeply held views and the
trends towards downscaling monarchies in general, and just from the fact that the Queen has reigned over 50 years and at the end of such a long reign, its natural to take stock, revaluate and make some changes.

For Buckingham Palace and Parliament to treat a change in Camilla's title in isolation from other changes would be a waste of effort and counter-productive.
__________________
"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
  #1049  
Old 01-21-2007, 03:10 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
Quote:
Everybody knows and understands why Camilla prefers to be called Duchess of Cornwall but if they come out at the accession and state that she prefers to be called Princess Consort, some MP is going to say she can't without Parliament's permission and use the announcement as rationale for opening up a debate on the state of the monarchy.

Its simply too good an opportunity for a career politician to pass up. However, I think Charles is open to changes in the monarchy anyway and if Camilla really wants to be known as Princess Consort, the most logical solution if Charles and the government want to make other changes is to come out proactively in his first year and make the changes, adding on Camilla's title as just one of many changes.

I think where you and I differ is where we see the monarchy putting its emphasis. You seem concerned with Camilla's title in isolation to other changes; I'm simply saying that there is enough indication for other changes in the monarchy both from Charles' own deeply held views and the
trends towards downscaling monarchies in general, and just from the fact that the Queen has reigned over 50 years and at the end of such a long reign, its natural to take stock, revaluate and make some changes.
No, I agree with much of what you say, although I regret that I think you are right. My main concern in the thread was to get away from a posting orthodoxy that was developing that Camilla would be styled as Queen and that's it and that's all, which flew in the face of all the official statements on record from the Government and the BRF, and which I think represents a dangerous complacency amomgst those who, like myself, very much admire Camilla.

I was even thinking of starting a new thread called "Coming Reform in the British Royal Family" maybe you could and we could cover all the changes there.

I am certain that Charles wants change and that the public wants change. As far as a career minded politician challenging the government that is certainly a possibility, but as yet I have yet to hear a single expert claim that there's problem with her using a lesser title as long as she is legally Queen still.

But I think towards the end of the present reign you will see all sorts of changes, some, to me, like cognatic primogeniture, most welcome, some not so welcome.

I will lay imaginary internet cash that you will see

a) a limiting of the title HRH and Prince to far more direct heirs
b) cognatic primogeniture
c) a trimming of the civil list
d) disestablishment of the Church of England and also the King as its Head
e) established provisions for divorces, in advance

It certainly would not be a big deal for the King to style his wife Princess Consort, with the echoes of Albert, with all that going on. The point is, we can sometimes lose sight of this in this thread, that "she will be Princess Consort" is now the default position and expectation of the British public, since the Government, Royal Family, and couple themselves have said it, and since she already is styled differently than Charles. Now I know the difference between D of C and a new-created title, but in the non-royal-anorak wider world out there, the perception is simply of "different" and also, definitely, of "less", than Diana's position when married.
__________________
  #1050  
Old 01-21-2007, 03:16 PM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,725
You have to keep in mind that the reason Albert was styled Prince Consort was because he couldn't have the title King, as Kings traditionally outrank Queens. Victoria wanted him to have the title, but there's no way it would have happened. As sovereign by birthright, she could be outranked by no one, including her own husband.

So you shouldn't use that as a reason to give Camilla the title Princess Consort, as there's nothing stopping her from being styled equal to her spouse. There was something stopping Albert from being styled equal to his spouse, though.
__________________
"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........ "
  #1051  
Old 01-21-2007, 03:27 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
Sister M, although this has been said a couple of times, it isn't true. Parliament didn't want him to have the title "King Consort", so he didn't. But we have had Kings Consort in both England and Scotland, one of Mary I, one of Mary Queen of Scots. Neither outranked their wives, who ruled their realms solely.

The titles for male consorts in England have been: King Consort, first just a style of HRH and some years into the marriage Prince Consort, Nothing (Anne's husband took no extra titles) and Prince of the UK. So there's no real rhyme or reason to it.

Precedent is often quite muddy and not cast in stone, I find.
__________________
  #1052  
Old 01-21-2007, 03:32 PM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frothy
Sister M, although this has been said a couple of times, it isn't true. Parliament didn't want him to have the title "King Consort", so he didn't. But we have had Kings Consort in both England and Scotland, one of Mary I, one of Mary Queen of Scots. Neither outranked their wives, who ruled their realms solely.

The titles for male consorts in England have been: King Consort, first just a style of HRH and some years into the marriage Prince Consort, Nothing (Anne's husband took no extra titles) and Prince of the UK. So there's no real rhyme or reason to it.

Precedent is often quite muddy and not cast in stone, I find.


I took my information straight from a source I had been reading about the subject. Victoria wanted him to have the title, BUT AS I STATED, it wasn't going to happen. I had said that already. I also said Kings TRADITIONALLY outrank Queens....meaning, there have been times when the usage of King Consort occurred. I know about Philip of Spain and Lord Darnley, I have read history books before.
__________________
"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........ "
  #1053  
Old 01-21-2007, 03:52 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
I was taking issue with the assertion that the title of King Consort means the Queen Regnant is outranked. The general view I believe is that the reason "King" Consort was frowned upon was that Albert was foreign. Certainly after Philip of Spain Parliament had cause to be worried there.
__________________
  #1054  
Old 01-21-2007, 04:01 PM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frothy
I was taking issue with the assertion that the title of King Consort means the Queen Regnant is outranked. The general view I believe is that the reason "King" Consort was frowned upon was that Albert was foreign. Certainly after Philip of Spain Parliament had cause to be worried there.

And I was saying that according to what I had been reading, one of the reasons why they wouldn't allow Albert to use the title King Consort was because Kings traditionally outrank Queens. The other reason was because Albert was a foreigner.
__________________
"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........ "
  #1055  
Old 01-21-2007, 04:05 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
Oh I see! Well, personally I would disagree with that assertion in your book then, the first one not the second one. The clear precedent in England and in Scotland had the Kings Consort very much as consorts not ruling Kings. The matter of foreigner however I had read of too.

I also read somewhere, of course it is just speculation, that the present Queen offered Philip "Prince Consort" but he didn't want it. It's interesting to me that both Philip and Albert were created Princes of the UK not on their marriages but quite a while after them. Perhaps that will also happen with Camilla?
__________________
  #1056  
Old 01-21-2007, 04:08 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
Of course it's worth saying here that of course the main difference between Albert/Camilla is that wives share their husband's rank but not the other way around. I completely agree with you, as you know, that Camilla should not be downgraded.
__________________
  #1057  
Old 01-21-2007, 04:18 PM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frothy
I also read somewhere, of course it is just speculation, that the present Queen offered Philip "Prince Consort" but he didn't want it. It's interesting to me that both Philip and Albert were created Princes of the UK not on their marriages but quite a while after them. Perhaps that will also happen with Camilla?


I too had read about Elizabeth and Philip and she never offered him Prince Consort. Winston Churchill suggested she call him that and she rejected that idea. She also rejected the idea of "Prince Royal". She wanted his title elevated, but didn't think either of those would work. So, she made him a Prince of the UK in his own right and inserted the definite article "The" before Prince Philip, which is usually only given to the children of the sovereign. So his title then became The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.
__________________
"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........ "
  #1058  
Old 01-21-2007, 04:29 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
Prince Royal? That would be a new one!
__________________
  #1059  
Old 01-21-2007, 04:50 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
No, I agree with much of what you say, although I regret that I think you are right. My main concern in the thread was to get away from a posting orthodoxy that was developing that Camilla would be styled as Queen and that's it and that's all, which flew in the face of all the official statements on record from the Government and the BRF, and which I think represents a dangerous complacency amomgst those who, like myself, very much admire Camilla.
Well I think that people's experience with published government statements particularly here in the U.S. gives us reason to doubt what government sources publish sometimes if its suspected to be a public relations ploy.

I think the main fact is that Charles is going to have a rough time in his first year as King regardless of the situation with Camilla. There will be the inevitable push for change given the change in British society since Elizabeth II came to the throne and from Charles' own value system. I don't think he is as forward thinking as he thinks he is and he may well be like Gorbachev in Moscow thinking he is going to change just a few things and then unwittingly starts a cataclysmic shift in the process.

Actually I think the first nail in the coffin was getting rid of hereditary peers in the House of Lords and giving the Lordships to career politicians. The whole basis of a hereditary monarchy is not based on one's individual worthiness for the position but inheritance which is sometimes deaf and blind to an individual's worth. Once you start saying that the old peers shouldn't be in the House of Lords just because their fathers were in it; its an easy enough jump to say why have Charles as King just because his mother was Queen or why have William as King just because Charles was.

With individual worthiness for the position comes individual will. What if William doesn't want the throne (and I suspect he doesn't). Should he have the right to abdicate like his great-great-uncle? In a modern society, we would say how unfair it is to force someone to take a lifetime oath to do something they don't want to do but if William doesn't want to do it, where does that place Harry?

And if none of them want to assume the throne, then where does that place the monarchy? Individual will and rights wasn't a highly prized commodity when kings were invented.

Yes, possibility for lots of changes.

Quote:
I was even thinking of starting a new thread called "Coming Reform in the British Royal Family" maybe you could and we could cover all the changes there.

I will lay imaginary internet cash that you will see

a) a limiting of the title HRH and Prince to far more direct heirs
b) cognatic primogeniture
c) a trimming of the civil list
d) disestablishment of the Church of England and also the King as its Head
e) established provisions for divorces, in advance
That's an idea. Let me discuss it with my co-mods although we could use this thread for the discussion too. This thread was started with the premise of what would happen when Charles comes to the throne and changes to the monarchy are high candidates for the list.
__________________
"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
  #1060  
Old 01-21-2007, 04:55 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,441
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frothy

c) a trimming of the civil list

Who would you have on the Civil List?

Currently there are only TWO recipients - the monarch and their spouse.

If you trim it - it will be to one person.

Remember it is to cover the costs of running the office of Head of State - staff etc and not for personal use.

If you trim the total then the work that the Head of State does would have to be cut back as they want be getting enough money to cover the costs or are you suggesting that the Head of State puts their hand in their own pockets to cover the costs of doing the job of Head of State - do you pay the costs associated with doing your job? I certainly don't.
__________________

__________________
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
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince felipe crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events dutch royal history engagement fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta elena infanta sofia jordan kate middleton king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg ottoman picture of the month pom president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden wedding william



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:38 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]