Title for Camilla - Part 3

[scooter]

Originally Posted by LadyCat

"Irrational minds" being the key words here! Why should Camilla be denied the rightful title of Queen just because a bunch of Dianaphites abhor the fact? It seems a bit absurd as Diana would never have been Queen anyway. Elspeth's explanation makes perfect sense, that it is to appease those "irrational minds" who would rather see Charles step aside in favor of William based on Diana's Panorama interview. Even 10 years on the woman holds too much sway in the opinions of others. The British monarchy has survived quite a bit over the centuries, I have a feeling it will survive Queen Camilla!

Cat

Oh come on, must everything be Diana's fault even after all of this time? Is there no accountability on the side of Prince Charles to take responsability his actions? Is it not possible that some people dont like Charles for reasons that have more to do with his own decisions/actions than Diana's long ago Panorama interview? I think it's pretty convenient to say that its all people with 'irrational minds'. Look, it was going to be an uphill battle when they decided they wanted to marry, constitutionally as well as the man in the street issue. There was a BBC poll at the time of the engagement that about 2/3 of the respondants took the position that if Charles wanted to marry Camilla he should step down from the succession. Perhaps you view all of those people as all dianaphites, but they are the pool of the population.
As far as Camilla being 'denied', has the palace not come right out asnd said that Camilla wishes to be known as the Princess Consort? If it's what she wants what is the problem?

[Elspeth]

I don't think the Palace has said anything about wishing it, they've just said that this is how she'll be known.

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by LadyCat

I was under the impression that titles passd through the male line by law, that tiles held by females became extinct upon their death.

If a title that passes to heirs male is held by a female for whatever reason (either by special remainder or the original grant), then they continue on to sons of the female. For example, when Countess Mountbatten dies, her son Lord Brabourne will become Earl Mountbatten, and he was known by his mother's subsidiary title of Lord Romsey until he became Lord Brabourne in his own right after the death of his father.

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by scooter

Oh come on, must everything be Diana's fault even after all of this time?

Nobody's saying it's Diana's fault. They're saying it's the fault of the people who viewed Diana as a perfect saint and Charles as the paragon of evil.

Originally Posted by scooter

Look, it was going to be an uphill battle when they decided they wanted to marry, constitutionally as well as the man in the street issue.

There wasn't a constitutional hill to climb, though, other than gaining the Queen's permission, which I think she would have given, even if slightly reluctantly (I don't think it was as reluctant as many think, though.) They've made a constitutional hill out of this "Princess Consort" nonsense, though.

[Madame Royale]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

Thomas Parker Bowles is a Parker from the Earl of Macclesfield-family. It is a very old tradition that if a member of a noble family does special services to the king he is elevated to a rank similar to that of the Head of the family or even beyond that. Just think of Arthur Wellesley...

So why should this old tradition not apply to the step-(and god-) son of the future king?

Personal service? What service could he possibly undertake in all seriousness? That any creation of a peerage would not be because of any service he may povide Charles, but because he is his step son, would be more likely, and I'm sure that if it were to ever happen, a flimsy excuse is what would be given, if any.

Secondly, I wouldn't care to see him elevated in anyway, when it's been my experience of Tom, that the man is a pretentious ignoramus. A shame because his sister is really quite lovely. Probably takes after her mother.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by LadyCat

I was under the impression that titles passd through the male line by law, that tiles held by females became extinct upon their death. I know there were several titles that became extinct when there was no male to inherit, with the except being the sovereign.

Cat

It all depends of the special reminders of the Letters Patent. There are peerages that can be inherited through the female line and others who can't. A peer without children or only with daughters may hold several titles and each title is being treated differently. So one might go extinct or pass into another branch of the family and another one might end up with the daughter. If you're interested, look up "Sutherland". That's interesting because a Marquess had married a Countess in her own right and the king created the Marquess a duke with his wife's name. But when the last duke died without children, the dukedom of Sutherland along with the peerage of the marquess went to a very distant relative who is now Duke of Sutherland while the earldom ended up with the late duke's niece, who is now the Countess of Sutherland...

[Madame Royale]

Madame Royale, I didn't say that Charles will create him a peer

Jo, I didn't say you did.

[LadyCat]

Thank you Jo of Palentine and everyone else for setting me straight on the whole business of titles that are "inherited". You learn something new every day!

Cat

[Jo of Palatine]

Cat, there's a nice lady called Laura out there who once, back in the 90ties, collected information of all kinds about titles of the British nobility. She addressed it to the readers and authors of historical novels, especially romances, because it's unbelievable how much errors appear there.

I found the page highly interesting and very informative. As it's good to read either, maybe you like to look around it?

British Titles of Nobility

Have fun!

[Warren]

I've copied or moved some of the more informative posts over to The British Nobility Thread.

[jcbcode99]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

British Titles of Nobility

Jo, Fantastic site! Thank you for the link; it's nice to have something at one's fingertips.

[PrinceOfCanada]

I place little faith in these so-called public opinion polls, as they usually are not in keeping with actually public opinion for various reasons. Let's face it, the person most likely to respond to an open poll is the person strongly against the subject. Those who are ambivalent or "for" it generally feel no need to voice it, the detractors are not so silent.

Sorry, but... how can you possibly say that public opinion polls don't actually reflect public opinion? Polling is a well-defined practice, and while it's possible to skew results based on how the questions are worded, random polls do actually attract a random sampling of the population. Statistical analysis does the rest.

And I repeat my earlier statement: This whole 'debate' is so much poppycock.

[Warren]

We seem to have wandered into that quagmire of discussing the Charles & Camilla relationship and marriage in terms of 'morality'.
Those posts have been moved here.

It would be better if the 'Title for Camilla' thread is kept to the topic of Camilla's future title and the options and technicalities which may be involved.

thanks,
Warren
British Forums moderator

[CasiraghiTrio]

Camilla's style of "HRH The Duchess of Cornwall" translates as follows:

French: SAR Duchesse de Cornouailles
Spanish: SHR Duquesa de Cornualles
Italian: SHR Duchessa di Cornovaglia
Portuguese: SHR Duquesa da Cornualha
German: IKH Herzogin von Cornwall
Swedish: HKH Hertiginna av Cornwall
Danish: HKH Hertuginde af Cornwall
Dutch: HKH Hertogin van Cornwall

[Monika_]

Originally Posted by scooter

Why do you think they floated the whole 'Princess Consort' title rather than say yes she will be queen?

In an attempt to make it more palatable. That's it in a nutshell.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio

Camilla's style of "HRH The Duchess of Cornwall" translates as follows:

Thanks for all the information CasiraghiTrio.

[CasiraghiTrio]

^

Welsh: Duges Cernyw (no idea how to put HRH into Welsh)

Norwegian: HKH Hertuginnen av Cornwall

[iowabelle]

IMO the whole "Princess Consort" idea is rather silly.

Even George IV was unsuccessful in trying to strip his disgraceful wife, Caroline, of the title of Queen (of course, GIV was no great prize either).

Granted the situations aren't entirely analogous (GIV and Caroline hating each other, while the Waleses seem to be getting along) and Charles merely wanting to call his queen by a different title, it is totally against precedent. I think if the woman's married to the king, then queen she ought to be and she ought to be recognized as such.

[scooter]

Originally Posted by Monika_

In an attempt to make it more palatable. That's it in a nutshell.

I think you may well be right, Monika. IMO, there is a certain disingenuousness there. If they had come right out and said Yes, by Golly, It's going to be Queen Camilla with all the bells and whistles, they knew there would be more resistance to the marriage. So instead, they said why no, no no, Camilla will be Princess Consort, all the while figuring that Camilla-aversion would decline over the years and when/if Charles inherited, they'd slip the Queen Camilla part in. All of this of course, presupposes that both Charles and Camilla outlive Queen Elizabeth, who may well live another 25 years as her mother did. That would make Charles and Camilla in the 85 year old range, so it may be a moot point. If Charles predeseased Camilla, her title would be HRH Camilla, Dowager Duchess of Cornwall, as William would become the new Duke of Cornwall, right?

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by iowabelle

IMO the whole "Princess Consort" idea is rather silly.

Even George IV was unsuccessful in trying to strip his disgraceful wife, Caroline, of the title of Queen (of course, GIV was no great prize either).

Granted the situations aren't entirely analogous (GIV and Caroline hating each other, while the Waleses seem to be getting along) and Charles merely wanting to call his queen by a different title, it is totally against precedent. I think if the woman's married to the king, then queen she ought to be and she ought to be recognized as such.

Very well said. I agree with you 100%.