Title for Camilla - Part 3 - Page 18

muriel · #**341** 07-17-2008, 07:51 AM

If the in relation to male primogeniture is to be changed (and I am indifferent on this point), I would hope that it be changed before William has his first child - so as not to have any potential changes in the line of succession!

MARG · #**342** 07-17-2008, 08:53 AM

I agree. It was not easy for CP Victoria to step up to the plate when her younger brother had been the heir and it was very hard for him to suddenly become the "spare.

If gossip is to be believed, the King was and is not in favour of such a change. Doubly hard for the man who would have been King and the Princess that will now be Queen.

wbenson · #**343** 07-17-2008, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MARG

I agree. It was not easy for CP Victoria to step up to the plate when her younger brother had been the heir and it was very hard for him to suddenly become the "spare.

How was it hard for him to suddenly become the "spare" when he was seven months old? I doubt he even remembers being the Crown Prince.

MARG · #**344** 07-17-2008, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wbenson

How was it hard for him to suddenly become the "spare" when he was seven months old? I doubt he even remembers being the Crown Prince.

Point taken. I was in error. However, as I also said, "gossip" has it that the King continues to disagree with the law change. Family dynamics would have to be affected by such a stance.

iowabelle · #**345** 07-18-2008, 01:17 PM

MARG, I almost ragged on you for the same thing! Didn't see how a toddler could miss this change.

But maybe the young prince views it as a way of escaping a confined life, although that makes it less attractive to Victoria (just look at the gossip she's endured with Daniel). If Carl Philip is into art, that's an interest more easily pursued without the crown. (Let's hope so anyway.)

My friend Nancy who has travelled in Germany tells me the Germans think Carl Philip was robbed of his birthright, though.

milla Ca · #**346** 07-18-2008, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iowabelle

My friend Nancy who has travelled in Germany tells me the Germans think Carl Philip was robbed of his birthright, though.

The Germans?...or maybe some Germans or a German??

jcbcode99 · #**347** 07-18-2008, 02:19 PM

I thought that was interesting that the Swedish succession was made retroactive like that, displacing Carl Philip and making Victoria CP. Imagine how she feels, knowing that her father prefers her brother to take the throne.
Getting back to the title for Camilla.....I am still in favor of Her Majesty The Queen Consort Camilla; has a nice ring.

PrinceOfCanada · #**348** 07-18-2008, 02:26 PM

Except that Queen Consort isn't really a title that's used in the UK. She will be HM Queen Camilla. She will be a queen consort, yes, but not the Queen Consort, if that makes sense.

iowabelle · #**349** 07-21-2008, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milla Ca

The Germans?...or maybe some Germans or a German??

To be honest, I don't for sure know! At least one German woman told my friend... Are we wrong? Or do Germans in general even care about the succession in Sweden?

I'm willing to be wrong about what my friend told me.

Jo of Palatine · #**350** 07-21-2008, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iowabelle

Or do Germans in general even care about the succession in Sweden?

Iowabelle, as queen Silvia of Sweden has been the first "German" queen for ages (we got rid of all our queens in 1918) a lot of people here in Germany are interested in her and her family.

iowabelle · #**351** 07-21-2008, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

Iowabelle, as queen Silvia of Sweden has been the first "German" queen for ages (we got rid of all our queens in 1918) a lot of people here in Germany are interested in her and her family.

That's what I thought... much like the Australians and their new princess, Mary. Of course, Silvia was such a beautiful young queen back in the 70s.

jcbcode99 · #**352** 07-21-2008, 03:25 PM

She was a beautiful young Queen--she remains a beautiful Queen. She really wears those royal jewels well, too. I just love Queen Silvia. She's remarkable. I also hope to be able to refer to Camilla as HM The Queen one day.

Monika_ · #**353** 07-21-2008, 04:17 PM

Elspeth, I suspect the backlash from presenting it as a last minute surprise (her being Queen, and not Princess Consort) would be significant. If they haven't chosen to state that as their intention now, I can only foresee cries of foul play in the end.

It's also possible that if it is their intention for her to continue to play more of a supportive/background role, this way no one would be able to compare her 'input' to HM's or the QM's. Just a thought...

Odette · #**354** 07-21-2008, 07:40 PM

I may be totally wrong but I believe I read that Camilla, even if she is not called by that title, she is already Princess of Wales, by virtue of her marriage to Prince Charles. Also when Prince Charles becomes King, Camilla will be Queen consort.
I personally believe that since she is P Charles wife she has earned the titles and the privilege her position gives her.

Monika_ · #**355** 07-21-2008, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by branchg

Divorce was a social disgrace and unacceptable to the Church of England in 1936...

Denying the DofW the style of HRH was a choice. That's the point. If you argue that Camilla deserves it because of Charles' position, then it should apply to the other lady too. I think there are similarities between the two women. Both ladies had relationships with a PoW, although Edward VIII was not a married man, so yes, I suppose there is a difference there.

**Elspeth** · #**356** 07-21-2008, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by branchg

Divorce was a social disgrace and unacceptable to the Church of England in 1936. It was unthinkable for a twice-divorced woman to marry The King or become a member of the royal family, never mind Queen. So, Edward had no choice but to abdicate the throne due to his own selfishness and refusal to do his duty. What choice did George VI have but to deny her royal rank as a consequence?

He had the choice to grant it. Or at least the choice to say that it was automatically hers, which it was. If the HRH title had been a reward for good behaviour, certain HRHs by birth should have had it removed. As it is, it's simply a style that sons of monarchs, and their wives unless the marriage is morganatic, are entitled to.

Quote:

Camilla is a totally different situation in that she is already married to the heir to the throne and will automatically be Queen when the time comes. Whether Parliament will be prepared to introduce legislation will depend greatly on public opinion at the time. If opposition is strong to her being Queen, it can be done.

I think it would do immeasurable damage if it were done after Charles's accession. If they really intend for it to be that way, they should be putting the legislation in train now.

**Elspeth** · #**357** 07-21-2008, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Odette

I may be totally wrong but I believe I read that Camilla, even if she is not called by that title, she is already Princess of Wales, by virtue of her marriage to Prince Charles. Also when Prince Charles becomes King, Camilla will be Queen consort.
I personally believe that since she is P Charles wife she has earned the titles and the privilege her position gives her.

Yes, Camilla is Princess of Wales, but she's choosing to be known by another of her titles. When Charles becomes King, she'll automatically be the Queen Consort unless legislation to the contrary has been passed before his accession.

caroline mathilda · #**358** 07-21-2008, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth

As it is, it's simply a style that sons of monarchs, and their wives unless the marriage is morganatic, are entitled to.

What is the definition of morganatic marriage now? Traditionally it has been the marriage of two social unequals. As Camilla is a commoner, is their marriage not already morganatic as well as all the other "commoner" and Royal titled marriages not only in Britain but throughout the Royal Families of Europe? I am very curious about all of your perspectives.