The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #421  
Old 07-25-2008, 03:29 PM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
Quote:
It's almost as if they think Camilla is responsible for her death somehow.
Actually, I think the outcry would be even worse, had Diana lived. The thing is, people have fallen into this trap of worshiping Saint Diana, completely ignoring the fact that she too was screwing around; all three people involved in that whole mess were equally to blame. Unfortunately, many people view it as a Camilla vs. Diana issue--what about Charles? Why is there no vitriol for him?

Had Diana not been tragically killed, Charles and Camilla would still (I think) have gotten married, but the yammering of the hagiographers would be even louder in favour of the ridiculous 'princess consort' crap. "She was the rightful Queen!" they would yell. Except, y'know, she wasn't.

Camilla should and will be Queen. That's how it works. Any suggestion to the contrary is either pandering to the Saint Diana brigade, or is coming from a member of same.
__________________

__________________
  #422  
Old 07-25-2008, 04:08 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
Actually, I think the outcry would be even worse, had Diana lived. The thing is, people have fallen into this trap of worshiping Saint Diana, completely ignoring the fact that she too was screwing around; all three people involved in that whole mess were equally to blame. Unfortunately, many people view it as a Camilla vs. Diana issue--what about Charles? Why is there no vitriol for him?

Had Diana not been tragically killed, Charles and Camilla would still (I think) have gotten married, but the yammering of the hagiographers would be even louder in favour of the ridiculous 'princess consort' crap. "She was the rightful Queen!" they would yell. Except, y'know, she wasn't.

Camilla should and will be Queen. That's how it works. Any suggestion to the contrary is either pandering to the Saint Diana brigade, or is coming from a member of same.
I think they have anyway. If memory serves, there was a Mail article a few months back talking about Camilla stealing Diana's crown.
__________________

__________________
  #423  
Old 07-25-2008, 04:32 PM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
Yes.. but it would be louder if she were still alive. Her death was tragic, yes. The circumstances of her marriage were also pretty grim. But that should have no bearing on Camilla's title.

Especially since changing her title requires the consent of all the Commonwealth Realms. In their zeal to punish Camilla for perceived sins (and, again, not Charles for some reason), the Diana supporters have failed to realize the odious can of worms that would open.
__________________
  #424  
Old 07-25-2008, 04:41 PM
Monika_'s Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
Actually, I think the outcry would be even worse, had Diana lived. The thing is, people have fallen into this trap of worshiping Saint Diana, completely ignoring the fact that she too was screwing around; all three people involved in that whole mess were equally to blame. Unfortunately, many people view it as a Camilla vs. Diana issue--what about Charles? Why is there no vitriol for him?

Had Diana not been tragically killed, Charles and Camilla would still (I think) have gotten married, but the yammering of the hagiographers would be even louder in favour of the ridiculous 'princess consort' crap. "She was the rightful Queen!" they would yell. Except, y'know, she wasn't.

Camilla should and will be Queen. That's how it works. Any suggestion to the contrary is either pandering to the Saint Diana brigade, or is coming from a member of same.
First of all, I am offended by the term "[blanking] around." That language is uncalled for.

I for one have never worshipped "Saint Diana." I respected a woman who happened to have internal conflicts because of events that took place in her childhood. Who doesn't at some level? She faced up to some of these demons privately and even tried to use her struggles to inspire others. She was thrust onto the world stage at the age of 19 and took on more than any of us can begin to imagine, both publicly and privately. Her impact was/is undeniable.

As for the question of whether Charles and Camilla would have married if Diana was alive, well, I suspect that's a whole other thread. But since you raised the subject, IMHO, it would have been extremely difficult given what would have been the presence of an active and popular former wife.
__________________
"If I had said some things about her before 1997, she could have responded to them but, since she is not here, it would be very unfair to make a comment about her." Dr Hasnat Khan
  #425  
Old 07-25-2008, 05:05 PM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
Quote:
First of all, I am offended by the term "[blanking] around." That language is uncalled for.
Oh please. That is precisely what all three of them were doing. To use any other language to describe it would be to grant an air of legitimacy to the adultery that all three were engaging in.

Quote:
She was thrust onto the world stage at the age of 19 and took on more than any of us can begin to imagine, both publicly and privately.
Hardly. She chose to be put on that stage.

But none of that matters. What we're discussing is Camilla's title. Which should and will be Queen, Diana worshippers notwithstanding.
__________________
  #426  
Old 07-25-2008, 05:23 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
Which should and will be Queen, Diana worshippers notwithstanding.
Indeed. This whole "Princess Consort" nonsense seems to me like something concocted in the back rooms of Clarence House without doing any research or consultation with people who knew what they were doing at the Palace.
__________________
  #427  
Old 07-25-2008, 05:49 PM
Monika_'s Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
Oh please. That is precisely what all three of them were doing. To use any other language to describe it would be to grant an air of legitimacy to the adultery that all three were engaging in.
Yes, all three did, but only one of the three couldn't decide what "love means". And from there came other things...

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
Hardly. She chose to be put on that stage.
Yes, just as any woman who loves a man and accepts the package that comes as part of the marriage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
But none of that matters. What we're discussing is Camilla's title.
I thought we were too.
__________________
"If I had said some things about her before 1997, she could have responded to them but, since she is not here, it would be very unfair to make a comment about her." Dr Hasnat Khan
  #428  
Old 07-25-2008, 08:26 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
Mind you, I can't see Camilla being stuck with "Great Stewardess..." so maybe this set of titles doesn't carry across to the wife.
She doesn't. Her Scottish titles are only styles as the wife of The Duke of Rothesay. Camilla is "HRH The Princess Charles, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Carrick, Baroness Renfrew and Princess of Scotland"
__________________
  #429  
Old 07-25-2008, 09:12 PM
sirhon11234's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
the Diana supporters have failed to realize the odious can of worms that would open.
Some of the Diana supporters not all.
__________________
"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
  #430  
Old 07-25-2008, 09:17 PM
scooter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,281
It's a bit too convenient, to me, to lay all of the responsibility of Camilla's reputation and past history on 'Diana Hagiographers'. On some level even the most ardent Camilla worshipers will need to accept the fact that Camilla is responsible for her own decisions, own actions, her own reputation. In the final analysis, regardless who the first Princess of Wales was, Camilla and Charles chose to have a long standing adulterous (to both the first Princess and to Mr. Parker-Bowles) relationship. Some people dislike/disrespect them for this. Not everything on this planet is about Diana. And Monika, I ust agree with you about the 'whatever love means' remark. Does anyone, in the light of hindsight, doubt that Charles knew exactly what 'love means'. He just meant, but with Camilla not with you.
__________________
  #431  
Old 07-25-2008, 09:54 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,231
I always thought that Charles was trying to be romantic in his way when he said that (sort of like "I don't think we can know what true love is, but I think I found it," whether he meant it or not). Not until the marriage started to go sour did people start looking at it in that light.
__________________
  #432  
Old 07-25-2008, 10:01 PM
Monika_'s Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
I always thought that Charles was trying to be romantic in his way when he said that (sort of like "I don't think we can know what true love is, but I think I found it," whether he meant it or not). Not until the marriage started to go sour did people start looking at it in that light.
Oh, I respectfully disagree. It only required a yes or no response. Diana was quite clear with her emphasis on 'of course,' as if to say that any other scenario was unthinkable. But for Charles it hit a nerve. He didn't expect the question and he couldn't think of a good answer.
__________________
"If I had said some things about her before 1997, she could have responded to them but, since she is not here, it would be very unfair to make a comment about her." Dr Hasnat Khan
  #433  
Old 07-25-2008, 10:04 PM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
It's a bit too convenient, to me, to lay all of the responsibility of Camilla's reputation and past history on 'Diana Hagiographers'.
I lay precisely none of that responsibility there. However, the absurdity of this whole 'princess consort' affair is entirely and solely the result of pandering to the Diana worshippers. Unless someone can cite reputable sources which show that this has been done in the past? No? For crying out loud, even Henry VIII's multitude of wives were all called Queen. And there is simply no question that he was, shall we say, spreading his favours far and wide before, during, and after marriage.

In fact, it is much more common for Royals to hop from bed to bed than most people are comfortable accepting. The idea of lifelong monogamy is relatively new in those circles. Indeed, the whole concept of Royal (and, to a somewhat lesser extent) noble marriages is that they represent the transaction of property, titles, and duty. Once the heir (and a spare) was begat, most historic royal/noble couples would then proceed to have their own liaisons on the side. Look at how many Dukedoms were provided to illegitimate--even adulterous--children, for example.

Quote:
On some level even the most ardent Camilla worshipers will need to accept the fact that Camilla is responsible for her own decisions, own actions, her own reputation.
I'm neither a Camilla nor a Diana worshipper. I'm just sick of watching the Diana zealots continue to punish Camilla for something that, to be brutally frank, is much more Charles' responsibility than that of the two women involved. It takes two to tango, but it takes someone--in this case, the Heir to the Throne, who was deliberately abrogating his wedding vows--to get things started.

'Princess consort' is a nonsense. It is a title which means nothing. Not only that, but it absolutely contravenes centuries of Royal practice, tradition, and law. Women take dignities from their husbands. Period. When a woman marries a man, she takes his title until divorce (and subsequent remarriage) or widowhood (in which case she would generally become the Dowager Title of Wherever). That's it. That's how it works. 'Princess consort' is a ridiculous made-up bit of foolishness meant as a sop to those who are unable to accept that not only did Diana behave as poorly as Charles, but that they were divorced and she subsequently died in a tragic accident. Frankly--and I know I'm ranging a bit far afield here--this cult of Diana serves to cheapen her memory and legacy, not to celebrate it; portraying her as the poor little victim of Charles and Camilla is to completely remove any agency she had over her own life. Or, to put it another way:

Quote:
On some level even the most ardent Diana worshipers will need to accept the fact that Diana was responsible for her own decisions, own actions, her own reputation.
All of this handwaving about 'princess consort' is just that. As I have already pointed out, there is no precedent whatsoever for the title. As I have also pointed out, changing Camilla's title upon Charles' accession will require Acts of Parliament from all sixteen Commonwealth Realms. Every single one! Westminster may not act unilaterally in this case. And do you really think that the Palace would like to give Australia (which currently has the strongest republican movement within the Commonwealth) the perfect opening to abolish the monarchy? Charles' Accession alone will be more than enough; a tempest in a teapot over his wife's title will practically guarantee a republican victory in Australia. For goodness' sake, the republican talking points practically write themselves: "Is this all the monarchy is good for? They force us to pass an Act of Parliament so that Charles can call his bit on the side a Princess! Vote for an Australian Republic and be done with this Royal ridiculousness!"

Seriously. This is so silly.
__________________
  #434  
Old 07-25-2008, 10:14 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monika_ View Post
Yes, all three did, but only one of the three couldn't decide what "love means". And from there came other things...
And what, pray tell, does Charles' statement 'whatever love means' have anything to do with what title Camilla gets?
__________________
"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
  #435  
Old 07-25-2008, 10:20 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monika_ View Post
It only required a yes or no response.
Charles has never been a yes or no kind of man, unlike his father who thinks extra words are a waste of good air.
__________________
  #436  
Old 07-25-2008, 10:22 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
As I have also pointed out, changing Camilla's title upon Charles' accession will require Acts of Parliament from all sixteen Commonwealth Realms.
I don't think they've ever said they intend to change the title. From everything I can tell, they just want to brute force it and tell people to call her PC regardless of her actual title.
__________________
  #437  
Old 07-25-2008, 10:24 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: fort lauderdale, United States
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel View Post
And what, pray tell, does Charles' statement 'whatever love means' have anything to do with what title Camilla gets?
Probably more than the Earl of Essex does. But actually what title she gets is entirely up to the monarch alone and doesn't have anything to do with anyone else.
__________________
  #438  
Old 07-25-2008, 10:24 PM
Monika_'s Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 190
Well, I don’t dispute Henry VIII’s legacy, but I thought we evolved a bit since then. And if royal marriages are still just a series of transactions, etc. (and I tend to disagree), then it’s “okay” as long as both parties understand that from day one.

As for the Princess Consort issue, I suspect it doesn’t have as much to do with 'pandering' as it does with an understanding that the situation is awkward and sensitive, to put it mildly.
__________________
"If I had said some things about her before 1997, she could have responded to them but, since she is not here, it would be very unfair to make a comment about her." Dr Hasnat Khan
  #439  
Old 07-25-2008, 10:32 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by brandon View Post
Probably more than the Earl of Essex does. But actually what title she gets is entirely up to the monarch alone and doesn't have anything to do with anyone else.
That's incorrect. The title of a Queen Consort can only be changed by Act of Parliament. So that's some 1300 people who have something to do with it (although 700 never actually come to vote in the Lords)
__________________
  #440  
Old 07-25-2008, 10:33 PM
Al_bina's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 5,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
... [snipped] It takes two to tango, but it takes someone--in this case, the Heir to the Throne, who was deliberately abrogating his wedding vows--to get things started.
... [snipped]
Who is guilty in this awkward situation? Perhaps, indecisiveness and inability of Prince Charles to protect the true love of his life in front of crowds yet again ... ill advice from the Clarence House... What could the most ardent and staunch fans of late Princess Diana do, if Duchess of Cornwall were announced to be Queen Consort?

__________________

__________________
"To watch the sun sink behind a flower clad hill.
To wander on in a huge forest without thought of return. To stand upon the shore and gaze after a boat that disappears behind distant islands. To contemplate the flight of wild geese seen and lost among the clouds.
And, subtle shadows of bamboo on bamboo." Zeami Motokiyo
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
Title for Camilla - Part 2 wymanda The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 505 01-30-2008 12:07 PM
Title For Camilla TODOI The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 153 06-02-2004 03:12 AM




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 fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta elena 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 olympics ottoman picture of the month pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince joachim prince laurent prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marie princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit wedding william


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:39 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]