The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #481  
Old 01-29-2008, 09:57 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,983
Absolutely, jcbcode99

Camilla will be Her Majesty the Queen. No if's, buts or maybe's. The Question is how long she shall be Queen if the intent is for her to be known, officially as HRH the Princess Consort.

For all we know this process could already be underway, the logistics of it anyway, so as to provide as smooth a transition as possible when the time comes. If his coronation is already being penciled out then I'd be certain the issue of his wifes title would also be accorded the attention it so deserves.

Parliament is aware of the intended change, the Royal House is aware of the intended change and the Commonwealth Governments are aware of the intended change. This has been no hidden seceret, afterall. Of course, just because it's intended doesn't necessarily mean it's set in stone.

Can it be done? Most certainly it can and it's quite possible it shall. It's also possible that by the time Charles inherit's his mother's realm, that public endorsement of a Queen Camilla could have gained much vitality.

Quote:
The only reason that this business of Princess Consort is being discussed is because Diana was married to Charles and she complained to the world about him and was able to garner lots of sympathy for herself
I wouldn't solely lay blame at Diana's feet. I've always seen it as having had more to do with the extramarital company sought by those involved, rather than a sympathy vote for Diana. I don't deny her involvement, I just don't think it right to blame her for the decision of Clarence House some 8 years after her death. We must remember that those who feel they have strong affiliations with the Late Princess' memory, are a minority. To propose such a change would not be done to make happy a minority of people, imo. So it's my belief that it reflects something deeper than that, something which goes beyond a marriage of two people.

The morals and merit, that we the people entrust in our institution!

And yet, my reasons for wanting Camilla to be Princess Consort are reflected by neither scenario...
__________________

__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
  #482  
Old 01-29-2008, 10:11 PM
sirhon11234's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcbcode99 View Post
Perhaps it was harsh, Sirhon but I think is is accurate. The only reason that this business of Princess Consort is being discussed is because Diana was married to Charles and she complained to the world about him and was able to garner lots of sympathy for herself. Camilla has already given up her rightful style of Princess of Wales, (althought she is in fact Camilla, The Princess of Wales) why should she have to give up HM The Queen? Diana would have never been Queen--she wanted a divorce, she got one. Unfortunantly, she died in a horrible car accident--but her dying that way made everyone feel this need to canonize her and treat her memory like a delicate piece of blown glass--and she doesn't really deserve all of that; she does deserve respect, but denying Camilla something that is legally and rightfully hers is going to an extreme that I just do not think is right. I respect tradition and I believe that whoever is married to the King should become the Queen.
jcbcode99 (how did you come up with that name?) I don't have a problem with Camilla becoming Queen, the title is not affiliated with Diana the POW is.
When she decided to style herself as DOC I was very pleased with that choice, that is why I haven't objected to Camilla becoming queen. The Princess of Wales is a Queen in my Heart, so its of no importance to me when Camilla becomes queen.
__________________

__________________
"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
  #483  
Old 01-29-2008, 10:23 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,236
I don't think it will be brought before Parliament unless it's understood beforehand what the result will be. I can see the headlines now: "Children die as Parliament debates Camilla's Title instead of <thing>."

I really do think that if Charles and Camilla decide that she should be known as "Princess Consort," they'll just go the unofficial route, accept that legally she's the Queen, and simply will people to call her what they want, unless the government of the day is opposed to such a move (honestly, I can't imagine the government of the day saying anything but "we'll respect your wishes.")
__________________
  #484  
Old 01-29-2008, 10:34 PM
jcbcode99's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Richmond Area, United States
Posts: 1,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirhon11234 View Post
jcbcode99 (how did you come up with that name?) I don't have a problem with Camilla becoming Queen, the title is not affiliated with Diana the POW is.
When she decided to style herself as DOC I was very pleased with that choice, that is why I haven't objected to Camilla becoming queen. The Princess of Wales is a Queen in my Heart, so its of no importance to me when Camilla becomes queen.
Sirhon, that was a beautiful post!
As for my name, well, my husband came up with it--he's osbcode99 and I'm thusly jcbcode99. I have no idea how he came up with it, but he thought it was cute
__________________
Janet

"We make a living by what we do; we make a life by what we give" Winston Churchill
  #485  
Old 01-29-2008, 10:44 PM
jcbcode99's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Richmond Area, United States
Posts: 1,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Royale View Post
Absolutely, jcbcode99

Camilla will be Her Majesty the Queen. No if's, buts or maybe's. The Question is how long she shall be Queen if the intent is for her to be known, officially as HRH the Princess Consort.

For all we know this process could already be underway, the logistics of it anyway, so as to provide as smooth a transition as possible when the time comes. If his coronation is already being penciled out then I'd be certain the issue of his wifes title would also be accorded the attention it so deserves.

Parliament is aware of the intended change, the Royal House is aware of the intended change and the Commonwealth Governments are aware of the intended change. This has been no hidden seceret, afterall. Of course, just because it's intended doesn't necessarily mean it's set in stone.

Can it be done? Most certainly it can and it's quite possible it shall. It's also possible that by the time Charles inherit's his mother's realm, that public endorsement of a Queen Camilla could have gained much vitality.



I wouldn't solely lay blame at Diana's feet. I've always seen it as having had more to do with the extramarital company sought by those involved, rather than a sympathy vote for Diana. I don't deny her involvement, I just don't think it right to blame her for the decision of Clarence House some 8 years after her death. We must remember that those who feel they have strong affiliations with the Late Princess' memory, are a minority. To propose such a change would not be done to make happy a minority of people. So it's my belief that it reflects something deeper than that, something which goes beyond a marriage of two people.

The morals, trust and merit, that we the people entrust in the institution!

And yet, my reasons for wanting Camilla to be Princess Consort are reflected be neither scenario...
Madame Royale, you have made me realize that I did not clarify myself! I do not lay the blame for this whole fiasco (love triangle, quadralateral, or whatever shape it takes) on just Diana. That would be irresponsible and, frankly, blind on my part. There was no innocent party here at all.
I do think that the proposal eight years ago for the title of Princess Consort was made to soften the marriage announcement because of the people who still revere Diana--and they are still around--look at what happened with the Memorial Service. It shows that public sentiment of a few still has influence. I think that will lessen with time, but I do think that tradition and law should be followed and she be Queen Camilla. I don't like the whole idea of second wives deserving less than their predecessors, which is what this amounts to.
__________________
Janet

"We make a living by what we do; we make a life by what we give" Winston Churchill
  #486  
Old 01-29-2008, 10:49 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by BellaFay View Post
If the Queen Mother was so anti Charles and Camilla as a couple why did she allows Prince Charles to entertain Camilla at Birkhall Lodge (her own property) during her lifetime. IMO I don't think we'll ever find out the QM's true opinion of the couple until William Shawcross's official biography of the QM gets published - if that ever happens of course! According to Richard Kay the text of the biography was handed to the Queen's private secretary for royal vetting and approval in the first week of September 2007. According to Penguin Publishers' website it was due for publication in October 2007. It hasn't been heard of since September and no new publication date has been given. Jonathan Dimbleby's 820page tome took less than 2 months to vet and we know that that had pieces edited out of it at Buckingham Palace's request, because Dimbleby admitted as much in 1994. So heaven knows what is being edited out of the QM biography during the 4 months its already been with the Queen.
I don't think we'll ever find out the truth about a lot of aspects of the Queen Mother until someone manages to write an authoritative biography that isn't vetted by the royal family. I'll be extremely surprised if the Shawcross biography isn't more of the same "the Queen Mother was perfect" stuff we've been getting for the last goodness knows how many decades.
__________________
  #487  
Old 01-29-2008, 10:55 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,983
As far as I'm aware, it wasn't even thought likely that Charles and Camilla would marry so the proposal of Princess Consort wouldn't have even been suggested.

What I meant was that 8 years after her death, it was proposed.

Quote:
I don't like the whole idea of second wives deserving less than their predecessors, which is what this amounts to.
I'm not so sure it's a matter of second wives (well, certainly isn't for me), but the way circumstances played out.
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
  #488  
Old 01-29-2008, 10:59 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
I don't think we'll ever find out the truth about a lot of aspects of the Queen Mother until someone manages to write an authoritative biography that isn't vetted by the royal family. I'll be extremely surprised if the Shawcross biography isn't more of the same "the Queen Mother was perfect" stuff we've been getting for the last goodness knows how many decades.
Well she was.
__________________
  #489  
Old 01-29-2008, 11:00 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirhon11234 View Post
jcbcode99 (how did you come up with that name?) I don't have a problem with Camilla becoming Queen, the title is not affiliated with Diana the POW is.
When she decided to style herself as DOC I was very pleased with that choice, that is why I haven't objected to Camilla becoming queen. The Princess of Wales is a Queen in my Heart, so its of no importance to me when Camilla becomes queen.
If Diana is a Queen in too many people's hearts, it'll be of great importance. As stated earlier in the thread, a constitutional monarchy exists because the public wants it. If the public can't stomach the notion of Charles as King and Camilla as Queen because Diana holds that place in their hearts, then I really do fear for the future of the monarchy.

After the abdication in 1936 it was relatively easy (although by no means a thoroughly foregone conclusion) for the Duke of York to become King in his brother's place. If something of the sort happens to Charles because people have tuned out of a monarchy where Diana no longer exists, in favour of a fantasy monarchy in their hearts and minds where Diana reigns supreme, then there are going to be much harder questions being asked along the lines of "why bother with the monarchy at all?" And the answers aren't going to be all that obvious.
__________________
  #490  
Old 01-29-2008, 11:03 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
Well she was.
She was what? Perfect? That vindictive old bat? Come on, Sam.
__________________
  #491  
Old 01-29-2008, 11:11 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Vindictive old bat? Grande dame of the British Empire I'd say. Marvellous woman and we could do with a few more like her rather than her chavvy grand-daughters. We could do worse than the Queen Mother for inspiration.
__________________
  #492  
Old 01-29-2008, 11:15 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Yep, vindictive old bat. Grande dame too, of course.
__________________
  #493  
Old 01-29-2008, 11:33 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
I don't think we'll ever find out the truth about a lot of aspects of the Queen Mother until someone manages to write an authoritative biography that isn't vetted by the royal family. I'll be extremely surprised if the Shawcross biography isn't more of the same "the Queen Mother was perfect" stuff we've been getting for the last goodness knows how many decades.
It will be surprising if The Queen allows Shawcross to publish any true revelations on her mother's feelings about the many events in her life. The Queen Mother was not one for revelation and preferred a fantasy image instead.

It was well-known The Queen Mother was adamantly opposed to Charles marrying Camilla. That's not to say she didn't like her personally, but accepting her as the new Princess of Wales and future Queen Consort was another matter altogether.
__________________
  #494  
Old 01-29-2008, 11:51 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Is it well known? I don't believe that for a second. The Queen Mother adored her grandson and wanted him to be happy. Camilla makes him happy, I refuse to believe that the Queen Mother would have with-held such happiness from someone she loved.
__________________
  #495  
Old 01-30-2008, 12:15 AM
kimebear's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Albany, United States
Posts: 1,382
But the truth remains that both the Queen Mother and the current Queen have always put duty and honor before everything in their lives. I cannot in good conscience believe that the Queen Mother would been happy seeing Camilla as Charles' wife. Yes, she makes him happy. Yes, I'm sure she is a perfectly lovely woman who will someday make a dignified queen, but would the Queen Mother have approved of the marriage, absolutely not. Wallis made her husband very happy too, but the Queen Mother never forgave her either.
__________________
  #496  
Old 01-30-2008, 12:51 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
The Queen Mother wasn't exactly close to David though. It's a different situation with different ties. And I don't know how you can say the truth remains that the Queen Mother and the current Queen have always put honour first when neither of them have exactly had anything happen in which they've had to do so. The Queen Mother didn't say anything after 1947 except, "Such a charming film" so where people get off saying she would have loathed the marriage of her grandson is beyond me. How can you presume to know what a woman who never ever spoke to the press felt about a situation she may or may not have been asked her opinion on?
__________________
  #497  
Old 01-30-2008, 01:38 AM
sirhon11234's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
If Diana is a Queen in too many people's hearts, it'll be of great importance. As stated earlier in the thread, a constitutional monarchy exists because the public wants it. If the public can't stomach the notion of Charles as King and Camilla as Queen because Diana holds that place in their hearts, then I really do fear for the future of the monarchy.

After the abdication in 1936 it was relatively easy (although by no means a thoroughly foregone conclusion) for the Duke of York to become King in his brother's place. If something of the sort happens to Charles because people have tuned out of a monarchy where Diana no longer exists, in favour of a fantasy monarchy in their hearts and minds where Diana reigns supreme, then there are going to be much harder questions being asked along the lines of "why bother with the monarchy at all?" And the answers aren't going to be all that obvious.
Well, your assesment is very interesting Elspeth. I think its unfair that some people don't want Charles to become king because they don't want to see Camilla become queen. And then there are probably some people who only want Charles to become king because they want to see her as his queen.
__________________
"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
  #498  
Old 01-30-2008, 05:11 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
She can't be Queen and a Princess Consort at the same time. She is Her Majesty The Queen, not Her Royal Highness Princess Camilla, once her husband becomes King.

That's the difference.
I'm not sure about that, since I read the documents of the discussion between the heraldry-expert Garter Principal king of Arms, the senior officer at the college of Arms and the government when it came to create Prince Philip a prince of the UK even though he was not born into the Royal family but married into it and was in a position where he could not partake on his spouse's rank. In addition there was the discussion about the rank of wifes of Royal princes.

So while of course Camilla would be queen as wife of the king she could in addition be a princess of the UK in her own right. Because the reading is that the wife only shares the rank of her husband but does not yet become herself a peeress as a Royal duchess or a princess. That's why Camilla is sometimes called HRH The princess Charles, princess of Wales...

But there are cases when a peeress in her own right married another peer, she still stayed a peeress, even though she often took on the name of her husband if he was higher ranked than her. So Charles of course can create Camilla a princess of the UK in her own right with the title of princess Consort.

But what happens if king Charles decides in order to solve some problems in his family that it's time to do something for gender equality? He could decree that all "children of the body" of princesses of the UK are to be treated like the children of the princes. That would mean that Anne's children become prince/princess as grandchildren of a souverain and that Beatrice and Eugenie's children are Lord/Lady Firstname Windsor or father's name with the rank of children of a duke. But it would mean as well that Tom and Laura would be Lord/Lady Firstname as they are children of a princess but not child/grandchild of the souverain....

Hm... I think he'd better stick with his wife the queen before he creates this kind of public problem.
__________________
'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.
  #499  
Old 01-30-2008, 09:00 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post
So while of course Camilla would be queen as wife of the king she could in addition be a princess of the UK in her own right. Because the reading is that the wife only shares the rank of her husband but does not yet become herself a peeress as a Royal duchess or a princess. That's why Camilla is sometimes called HRH The princess Charles, princess of Wales...

But there are cases when a peeress in her own right married another peer, she still stayed a peeress, even though she often took on the name of her husband if he was higher ranked than her. So Charles of course can create Camilla a princess of the UK in her own right with the title of princess Consort.
Her rank and title flow from her husband, not in her own right. She is a commoner with no titles of birth and is HRH The Princess Charles by marriage, in addition to his other titles and styles as the heir to the throne.

Once he is King, she can only be HM The Queen as there is no other style or title for the wife of the Sovereign. Since Charles would no longer be a Prince of the UK, Camilla cannot be a Princess of the UK as his wife.

Her precedence and title once she is Queen Consort is hers for life by right of the succession. If Charles dies, Camilla would remain a dowager queen with superior precedence to the princesses of the blood and after the new Queen.

That's why Parliament would have to define her rights legally if she wishes to be HRH The Princess Consort instead.
__________________
  #500  
Old 01-30-2008, 09:18 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
Her rank and title flow from her husband, not in her own right. She is a commoner with no titles of birth and is HRH The Princess Charles by marriage, in addition to his other titles and styles as the heir to the throne.

Once he is King, she can only be HM The Queen as there is no other style or title for the wife of the Sovereign. Since Charles would no longer be a Prince of the UK, Camilla cannot be a Princess of the UK as his wife.

Her precedence and title once she is Queen Consort is hers for life by right of the succession. If Charles dies, Camilla would remain a dowager queen with superior precedence to the princesses of the blood and after the new Queen.

That's why Parliament would have to define her rights legally if she wishes to be HRH The Princess Consort instead.
If at the time of Charles' accession public opinion does not support Camilla being referred to as Queen, I don't think the issue of Camilla being referred to as Princess Consort would be put to Parliament. She would continue to legally be Queen (just as she is currently the Princess of Wales) but would be referred to as the Princess Consort. Putting the new title would be a torturous process, and would need to be approved by the Parliaments of all the countries and dominions of the realm. I don't see that happening. You risk opening the whole issue of the relevance of the monarchy
__________________

__________________
Closed Thread

Tags
camilla, duchess of cornwall, princess consort, queen consort, 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
Princess Madeleine, Current Events Part 3: August 2004 - June 2005 Josefine Current Events Archive 279 06-26-2005 08:56 PM
Royal Family of Belgium Part 2 Alexandria Current Events Archive 190 03-30-2005 12:56 PM
Prince Felipe and Princess Letizia, Current Events Part 3: October - December 2004 Alexandria Current Events Archive 274 12-04-2004 09:11 AM
King Carl XVI Gustaf and Queen Silvia, Current Events Part 1: November 2002-June 2004 Josefine Current Events Archive 300 06-12-2004 08:13 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince felipe crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch royal history fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta elena infanta sofia jewellery 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 nobility olympic games ottoman poland pom president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince felipe prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary princess mary fashion princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:02 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]