The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #81  
Old 09-05-2005, 02:33 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
hehe

I wonder why we've never seen him in his tiara.
__________________

__________________
  #82  
Old 09-05-2005, 09:01 AM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren
The moment Charles become King, Camilla becomes Queen. The title of Queen can only be taken away, or denied, by legislation of the Parliament.
.
Please let Her Majesty outlive her son!!!! That woman becoming Queen disgusts me!!
__________________

__________________
  #83  
Old 09-05-2005, 09:35 AM
Alicky's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 580
That's kind of morbid. I wish them both long happy healthy lives.
  #84  
Old 09-05-2005, 12:56 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 705
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiaraprin
Please let Her Majesty outlive her son!!!! That woman becoming Queen disgusts me!!
What has she done that disgusts you exactly? I'm not really sure?

She had an affair with a married man while she herself was married. But so did Diana. Would you have been against Diana becoming Queen for this reason too?

It always amazes me how some actions are reasons for certain people to be beheaded while the exact same actions by other people are swept under the carpet or a littany of excuses are made for them.

Consider that within Charles and Diana's marriage both had affairs. Charles can at least say that he only had one affair whereas Diana had several affairs, with married and single men. Yet those who bow at Diana's altar excuse her affairs: Charles cheated first, he never loved her, she was a young and naive woman who was pushed into the marriage with Charles, she had a bad childhood, and on and on. Charles on the other hand is less than the scum of the earth apparently for his single though multi-year affair with Camilla. Did anyone ever stop to think that Charles was pushed into the marriage with Diana? Here was a young, pure girl whom the royal family thought they could control and manipulate and bear the future heirs to the throne and Charles' feelings about her or any other woman be damned. What about Charles' bad childhood? Two parents who were hardly around and unemotional or unsupportive in their emotions when they were, a father who insisted that he be sent off to boarding school.

Then consider that both Charles and Diana talked to the press. Charles admitted publicly to his affair with Camilla while married to Diana. Gasp! He told the truth yet he's still a jerk and the man who ruined Diana's life. Yet somehow Diana's admission of her own affairs didn't make her a jerk or any less disregarded. If Charles ruined Camilla and Andrew Parker-Bowles' marriage Diana also ruined Julia and Will Carling's marriage. How come no Diana fans discuss that?

The worst thing for me is that Diana used her children, at least William, in her public feud against Charles and Camilla. She cried in a bathroom over Charles' lack of love for her and her young son was shoving kleenex underneath the door and telling his mommy to stop crying. Whatever you think of a child's father as your husband, you never involve children. You never tell your children what a horrible person their father is. If Charles was as horrible as Diana made him out to be, William would've learned in his own time. Diana certainly shouldn't have told him that.
__________________
  #85  
Old 09-05-2005, 01:15 PM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genevieve
What has she done that disgusts you exactly? I'm not really sure?

She had an affair with a married man while she herself was married. But so did Diana. Would you have been against Diana becoming Queen for this reason too? ...
Diana was an innocent young bride at the age of 20 who was used by Charles to satisfy dynastic aims. Camilla and the rest of his group thought Diana was a quiet mouse that they could control and continue their shennanigans. Well, Diana was the mouse that roared and put her foot down. GOOD FOR HER!! While having affairs was not a moral thing to do, I could understand it being married to a man who used her and never loved her.

Also, there is no conclusive proof of an affair with Will Carling. After all these slanderous tell all books, not one of them states she had an affair with him.
__________________
  #86  
Old 09-05-2005, 01:25 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 705
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiaraprin
Diana was an innocent young bride at the age of 20 who was used by Charles to satisfy dynastic aims. Camilla and the rest of his group thought Diana was a quiet mouse that they could control and continue their shennanigans. Well, Diana was the mouse that roared and put her foot down. GOOD FOR HER!! While having affairs was not a moral thing to do, I could understand it being married to a man who used her and never loved her.
This is exactly the kind of 'swept under the carpet' comments I mean about avid Diana fans. She was a human being. She was not perfect. She made mistakes and was flawed and for some people to deny that she made mistakes at all is really a disservice.

Couldn't one say that it was justified that Charles had an affair being married to a mousy naive young girl?

What about it being "GOOD FOR CHARLES!!" that he found happiness in someone else since it is obvious that his wife could not make him happy and was actually the cause of so many of his frustrations?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiaraprin
Also, there is no conclusive proof of an affair with Will Carling. After all these slanderous tell all books, not one of them states she had an affair with him.
How much proof is necessary really? If you can take James Hewitt's words that he and Diana had an affair then you can certainly by the same shaky words by Julia Carling that her marriage ended because Diana slept with her husband. Even if you take away the Will Carling affair, Diana still cheated on Charles while they were married with Will Carling. She was no angel nor was she the matyr some are making her out to be eight years on after her death.

You can at least give credit to Charles and Camilla for owning up to their mistakes. They're adult enough to do that. Even in her mid-thirties when she died Diana was no more mature then the Shy Di the world met in 1980. She was still passing the blame onto others (Charles, Camilla, the royal family, the media) for her own downfall and making excuses for herself. Eight years after her death, her fans are still excusing her actions.

I'll take someone who is honest about her mistakes like Camilla then someone who played the blame game and never took responsibility for her actions like Diana any day.
.
__________________
  #87  
Old 09-05-2005, 01:29 PM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
I don't like Camilla and Charles and never will. Their actions were the catalyst for the breakdown of the monarchy in the 1990's. They are not saints and standing and saying one measly prayer at their blessing service does not make them upstanding moral citizens who have confessed their sins. Camilla has never said she was sorry for what she did. Perhaps if she hadn't done what she had, Diana wouldn't have done what she did. Camilla sinned first.
__________________
  #88  
Old 09-05-2005, 01:34 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 705
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiaraprin
I don't like Camilla and Charles and never will. Their actions were the catalyst for the breakdown of the monarchy in the 1990's.
Of course. Only Charles and Camilla had an affair. Maybe someone shoudl send a note to James Hewitt that his affair with Diana never happened and that it's all been in his head.
And of course Diana's public whining sessions did nothing to improve the image of the monarchy either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiaraprin
Camilla has never said she was sorry for what she did.
Maybe Camilla was waiting to take a lead from Diana and waiting for Diana to say sorry to Julia Carling first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tiaraprin
Perhaps if she hadn't done what she had, Diana wouldn't have done what she did. Camilla sinned first.
Does "being first" count when it comes to sinning? Here I was raised to think that sinning was sinning. Period. So if my friend steals a chocolate bar first it won't matter if I steal one after her. I get it now.
.
__________________
  #89  
Old 09-05-2005, 01:36 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Let's stop this, please. I know there's controversy over Camilla, and I think we're all fairly clear about which posters can't stand Camilla and can't stand Charles, but there's no need to derail every blessed thread with this argument.

Some people find the notion of Queen Camilla abhorrent; other people find the notion of wishing an early death on Charles abhorrent. People are just going to have to learn to live with the fact that others don't share their opinions, and to stop provoking needless arguments about it.

Elspeth

British Royals moderator
__________________
  #90  
Old 09-05-2005, 01:38 PM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genevieve
Of course. Only Charles and Camilla had an affair. Maybe someone shoudl send a note to James Hewitt that his affair with Diana never happened and that it's all been in his head.
And of course Diana's public whining sessions did nothing to improve the image of the monarchy either.
Maybe Camilla was waiting to take a lead from Diana and waiting for Diana to say sorry to Julia Carling first.
Does "being first" count when it comes to sinning? Here I was raised to think that sinning was sinning. Period. So if my friend steals a chocolate bar first it won't matter if I steal one after her. I get it now.
I will no longer rise to your bait. Go ahead and think what you like. You just wish to stir up trouble and bait the Diana loyalists.
__________________
  #91  
Old 09-05-2005, 01:50 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 705
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiaraprin
I will no longer rise to your bait. Go ahead and think what you like. You just wish to stir up trouble and bait the Diana loyalists.
Why do you jump to the conclusion that I am stirring up trouble and baiting the Diana loyalists? I have an opinon that is obviously very different than yours. Am I not allowed to have this opinon and share it just as you are allowed to share your love of Diana?

Did I click on the wrong link in my Favourites file? Have I landed at a Diana Fanatics only forum? Are those objective or even critical about Diana and her life not allowed to share their opinons anymore?

When I discuss Rania of Jordan's actions in the Jordanian forum no one there is telling me that I am stirring up trouble even though some people think Rania is not doing enough and others think she is doing just enough. We discuss it like adults. Is it because I've brought up some true points that the Diana loyalists don't want to admit to that I am being labelled a trouble maker?

You can choose to ignore my posts. That's fine with me. But don't say I'm stirring up trouble just because you don't like what you read. Sometimes the truth hurts and people can choose to believe what they want to.
__________________
  #92  
Old 09-05-2005, 01:56 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
AHEM!!! I said to STOP IT, you two.
__________________
  #93  
Old 09-05-2005, 08:23 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain
Just a thought.... If the Queen is the Duke of Lancaster does that mean Prince Philip is the Duchess?
LOL...the Crown is Duke of Lancaster, but the Sovereign is fount of honour and cannot be a peer since their dignity as King or Queen takes precedence over all other dignities of rank.

It is simply a style merged with the Crown, so there is no precedent for a spouse of the Sovereign to reflect anything but the rank and style either granted by letters patent (in the case of Prince Philip) or law (in the case of a female consort who automatically becomes Queen Consort).

Technically, as the fount of honour and source of all enoblement, I suppose it would be possible for the Sovereign to grant the style and title of "Duchess of Lancaster" to a female spouse who is not Queen Consort, but since Lancaster is not a separate dukedom in the peerage (it is a holding of the Crown alone), it would not be honourable to be granted a style lesser than Princess if Camilla cannot be Queen.
.
__________________
  #94  
Old 10-04-2005, 12:31 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Monterey, United States
Posts: 2,325
Lets just call what she is HRH Camilla, Princess of Wales (after all she is anyway) :) just MHO
__________________
  #95  
Old 10-04-2005, 02:15 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
When Charles is king, William will automatically become Duke of Cornwall, so Camilla can't use the title Duchess of Cornwall. The title Duchess of Lancaster would be available for her, though.
Ah I see someone else thought of that too. That was my thinking. :)

But there are difficulties I'm told. Why is it possible for Camilla to now be known as Duchess of Cornwall; yet as Queen it would not be possible for her to be known as Duchess of Lancaster?

How does the Lancaster title as a susidiary title for the monarch differ from the Cornwall title that is a subsidiary title for the Prince of Wales?

Or, as Warren says, is this opening up another can of worms?

edit: Below is britannica.com's explanation of the Duchy. I find it fascinating. It appears that the original Duke of Lancaster, John of Gaunt, married into the title rather than being created Duke by his father Edward III.

This prince, the fourth son of King Edward III and Queen Philippa, was born at Ghent (or Gaunt) in Flanders, in 1340. In his infancy, he was created Earl of Richmond and, by that title, admitted into the Order of the Garter upon the death of Thomas Holland, Earl of Kent, one of the original knights. In 1359, at Reading Abbey (Berks), he married Blanche, the younger of the two daughters and co-heirs of Henry, Duke of Lancaster, and upon the death of his father-in-law, in 1361, he was advanced to that Dukedom. He held also, in right of his wife, the Earldoms of Derby, Lincoln and Leicester, and the high office of Steward of England.

wikipedia.com's explanation

There were several Dukes of Lancaster in the 14th and early 15th Centuries. See also Duchy of Lancaster.

There were three creations of the Dukedom of Lancaster. The first Duke of Lancaster was Henry of Grosmont (c. 13061361), a great-grandson of Henry III; he was the 4th Earl of Lancaster before he was created the 1st Duke of Lancaster on March 6, 1351. His daughter Blanche married John of Gaunt, a son of King Edward III, and on November 13, 1362 John became the 1st Duke of Lancaster of the second creation. Upon John of Gaunt's death on February 4, 1399, the title passed to his son Henry Bolingbroke, Duke of Hereford, who became the 2nd Duke of Lancaster. Later that same year, Bolingbroke usurped the throne of England from King Richard II, ascending the throne as Henry IV. On November 10, 1399, the new king created his eldest son, Harry of Monmouth Duke of Lancaster. When Harry ascended the throne as Henry V in 1413, the title merged with the crown, with which it has remained ever since. The Duchy of Lancaster, however, continues to exist as a separate entity, one of only two Duchies in the United Kingdom.

It doesn't explain how the two duchies, Cornwall and Lancaster, are different though. So I'm still confused why Camilla can't be known as the Duchess of Lancaster upon Charles' accession.
__________________
  #96  
Old 10-04-2005, 05:10 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel
...

But there are difficulties I'm told. Why is it possible for Camilla to now be known as Duchess of Cornwall; yet as Queen it would not be possible for her to be known as Duchess of Lancaster?

How does the Lancaster title as a susidiary title for the monarch differ from the Cornwall title that is a subsidiary title for the Prince of Wales?

...
The Dukedom of Lancaster is a peerage just like any other British dukedom. The monarch is the fount of honour who creates peerages, and the Lord Chancellor wrote in the Buckhurst Peerage Case (1876) that 'the fountain and source of all dignities cannot hold a dignity from himself. The dignity... terminates, not by virtue of any provisions in its creation but from the absolute incapacity of the sovereign to hold a dignity.'

Thus, the sovereign cannot be at the same time a duke in his own kingdom. Any title that merges with the Crown 'disappears'. For example, George VI ceased to be the Duke of York in 1936--the title merged with the Crown upon his accession.
__________________
  #97  
Old 10-04-2005, 05:38 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,423
More questions!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mapple
Thus, the sovereign cannot be at the same time a duke in his own kingdom. Any title that merges with the Crown 'disappears'. For example, George VI ceased to be the Duke of York in 1936--the title merged with the Crown upon his accession.
Does this mean that although The Queen isn't the Duke of Lancaster because that dignity has merged with the Crown, she holds the Duchy of Lancaster? I thought that in Lancashire The Queen was referred to as 'The Duke of Lancaster'? Another point: the revenues of the Duchy don't flow to "the Crown" but to the Sovereign. This is very confusing!
.
__________________
  #98  
Old 10-04-2005, 06:48 AM
Margrethe II's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 917
The estates and jurisdiction known as the Duchy of Lancaster have belonged to the reigning Monarch as Duke of Lancaster since the year 1399.

It is still commonplace to hear the toast 'The Queen, the Duke of Lancaster' throughout the Duchy.

Indeed Warren. All financial benefit does infact go solely to Her Majesty the Queen and not the Crown.

"MII"
__________________
  #99  
Old 10-04-2005, 08:10 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren
Does this mean that although The Queen isn't the Duke of Lancaster because that dignity has merged with the Crown, she holds the Duchy of Lancaster?
Yes. It is her inherited property.

Quote:
I thought that in Lancashire The Queen was referred to as 'The Duke of Lancaster'?
To be precise, 'The Queen, The Duke of Lancaster'. It is a matter of tradition, not law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren
Another point: the revenues of the Duchy don't flow to "the Crown" but to the Sovereign. This is very confusing!
.
Yes. The Duchy of Lancaster is the personal property of the British monarch and not a part of the Crown Estate.
__________________
  #100  
Old 10-04-2005, 08:30 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren
Does this mean that although The Queen isn't the Duke of Lancaster because that dignity has merged with the Crown, she holds the Duchy of Lancaster? I thought that in Lancashire The Queen was referred to as 'The Duke of Lancaster'? Another point: the revenues of the Duchy don't flow to "the Crown" but to the Sovereign. This is very confusing!
.
The Crown is fount of honour and cannot hold any dignity other than Sovereign as King or Queen. However, the Sovereign is, by custom, styled in the duchy as "The Queen, the Duke of Lancaster" as it is an ancient holding.

There is nothing, per se, preventing a King from granting the style and title of Duchess of Lancaster to his wife. It has never been necessary since the wife of the King is Queen Consort. Even in the case of Camilla, assuming she becomes Princess Consort, the granting of a ducal style merged with the Crown would be pointless.
__________________

__________________
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
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events dutch royal history fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympics ottoman poland pom pregnancy president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess marilene princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:56 PM.

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]