The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #501  
Old 07-27-2008, 01:39 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
Exactly. Most people won't see it as any different from the current situation of "she's really Princess of Wales but she's elected to be known as Duchess of Cornwall."
And there are probably a great number of people who, having been born since 1952, don't remember a time where the monarch's spouse was equal in style and title to the monarch.
__________________

__________________
  #502  
Old 07-27-2008, 01:53 AM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
Quote:
There's no Prince Consort current either. The Duke of Edinburgh is a Prince and he is the consort of the Queen, but he is not the Prince Consort.
This is a different situation, for a couple of reasons.

First of all, men do not derive titles from their wives. So no matter what, Philip would have needed a title created for him, which is why he was created DoE on his wedding day; by that point it was pretty clear that Elizabeth was going to be on the throne sooner or later.

Second, Queens Regnant are a relatively rare occurrence in the UK: Elizabeths I and II, Anne, Victoria. One could make an argument for Maud, I suppose, but it's not really germane. As such, there is less precedent for how one should title and style the husband of the Queen. Elizabeth I, of course, never married; Anne's husband was a Prince (of Denmark, coincidentally enough) in his own right and was later created HRH Duke of Cumberland; Victoria's Albert, of course, was created a Prince, and later Prince Consort. Similar to Anne's husband, Philip was a Prince in his own right, though he renounced all his titles when he entered the Royal Navy--which is why the title needed to be created for him.

Third, one could reasonably argue that given Victoria's massive presence in British Royal history that it is unlikely that any future Prince consort will be titled as such, in deference to the memory of Albert.

Fourth, the difficulty of titling the husband of a Queen is this: morganatic marriages are not permitted in the UK. But, and here's the problem, the husband of a Queen cannot be called King (or even King Consort) as under rules of precedence in the UK, males outrank females of the same rank. (I'm not sure how that works with suo jure peeresses; perhaps someone else can enlighten). Thus, even with EIIR as Sovereign, titling Philip 'King' (consort) would in a very technical sense imply that he outranked her.

However.

None of these issues apply to Camilla. Here's why:

1) Wives derive titles from their husbands. That will make her Queen.
2) Kings Regnant are not an unusual occurrence in the UK; it's the usual thing. And the subject of their wives' titles has long been established: Queen.
3) There is no similar situation in all of history, let alone an example of loving devotion such as Albert, for any precedent to be set to deny the wife of a King her rightful title. That will make Camilla Queen.
4) A marriage between a King and a Queen is not morganatic, and is therefore not only allowed but required. That will make Camilla Queen.

Quote:
And there are probably a great number of people who, having been born since 1952, don't remember a time where the monarch's spouse was equal in style and title to the monarch.
True.. but see above for why that happened and why it won't happen again unless William only has girls (or one of his descendants does, or they move to strict primogeniture).
__________________

__________________
  #503  
Old 07-27-2008, 02:12 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
I'm not sure how that works with suo jure peeresses; perhaps someone else can enlighten.
Suo jure peeresses are treated as if they were married to a man holding their title. So in the ladies' order of precedence it goes Baroness A (her husband's title created in 1300), suo jure Baroness B (her title created 1310), and then Baroness C (her husband's title created in 1360). Or including everyone: Baron A, Baroness A, Baroness B, Baron C, Baroness C.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
True.. but see above for why that happened and why it won't happen again unless William only has girls (or one of his descendants does, or they move to strict primogeniture).
I know, but I strongly doubt that is common knowledge.
__________________
  #504  
Old 07-27-2008, 01:39 PM
Monika_'s Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirhon11234 View Post
There are no winners, two young men were robbed of their mother and a woman was killed in the prime of her life. Charles and Camilla should thank their lucky stars that they are together, healthy, alive and happy.
Well said. I fail to see any levity here.
__________________
"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
  #505  
Old 07-27-2008, 01:50 PM
Monika_'s Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post
Yes, you're right, but Diana decided that this was enough for her. Even at her age of 19 she must have realised that Charles was complicated. She must have realised that he brought a lot of emotional baggage with him, while not being free to purchase a lifestyle that could have helped him to overcome the baggage. So in a way she brought it up on herself - because she believed in dreams instead of evaluate realities. I agree her family should have helped her and I bet the Windsors counted on that because noone wanted that disaster.
So all the blame belongs on Diana's doorstep, I suppose. Hmmm... It's one thing to understand that a man is complicated, and quite another to realize that your husband may seek emotional support outside the marriage. Most sane people expect good times and bad in a marriage, but they expect to go through them side by side. But yes, shame on her for believing in dreams as it was never going to happen.
__________________
"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
  #506  
Old 07-27-2008, 02:11 PM
CasiraghiTrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burbank, United States
Posts: 6,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monika_ View Post
So all the blame belongs on Diana's doorstep, I suppose. Hmmm... It's one thing to understand that a man is complicated, and quite another to realize that your husband may seek emotional support outside the marriage. Most sane people expect good times and bad in a marriage, but they expect to go through them side by side. But yes, shame on her for believing in dreams as it was never going to happen.
I think Diana just kept pushing until Charles couldn't deal with her crap anymore. He seems to have given it a good try but a person can only take so much, you know? Dealing with people with emotional and psychological problems, over time, over and over again, day in day out, is exhausting.
And I think the family did a lot to try to help Diana! They got her doctors and meds, but in the end, the only person who could save Diana was Diana!!
__________________
Chewsteraghi on Tumblr. Schmichaelira on Twitter. Tumblr aka obsessivechewsteraghidisorder. Be warned: I'm weird.
  #507  
Old 07-27-2008, 02:13 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
So all the blame belongs on Diana's doorstep, I suppose.
Again you exaggerate. Why must you insist on seeing just good guys and bad guys? Good people can make bad decisions; people can go into a marriage fully expecting to stay in love with the person they marry and then find out that the person they married is nothing like they thought. Or the marriage is nothing like they thought.

So the dreams they had of sharing a life with this person can't come true even if they tried to share a life with this person because the person they thought they were sharing a life with doesn't exist.

And then they find someone who really is like the person that they thought they were sharing their life with; only its another person. This happened for both parties.
__________________
"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
  #508  
Old 07-27-2008, 02:16 PM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monika_ View Post
So all the blame belongs on Diana's doorstep, I suppose. Hmmm... It's one thing to understand that a man is complicated, and quite another to realize that your husband may seek emotional support outside the marriage. Most sane people expect good times and bad in a marriage, but they expect to go through them side by side. But yes, shame on her for believing in dreams as it was never going to happen.
Well, we know that Charles hoped he could love her in time. She claimed to love him but when it came to bad times, she was more focussed on her own problems than on searching a way together with him. She could for example simply believed in him. She could have believed in him being at least gentleman enough to break it off with Camilla. She could have trusted him. But she didn't from the start. While he was really proud of her at first and believed in the possibility to make their marriage work. She was convinced it was doomed right from the start, I think. And acted accordingly.
__________________
'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.
  #509  
Old 07-27-2008, 02:44 PM
Monika_'s Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio View Post
I think Diana just kept pushing until Charles couldn't deal with her crap anymore. He seems to have given it a good try but a person can only take so much, you know? Dealing with people with emotional and psychological problems, over time, over and over again, day in day out, is exhausting.
And I think the family did a lot to try to help Diana! They got her doctors and meds, but in the end, the only person who could save Diana was Diana!!
Is this first-hand information?
__________________
"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
  #510  
Old 07-27-2008, 02:58 PM
Monika_'s Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel View Post
Again you exaggerate. Why must you insist on seeing just good guys and bad guys? Good people can make bad decisions; people can go into a marriage fully expecting to stay in love with the person they marry and then find out that the person they married is nothing like they thought. Or the marriage is nothing like they thought.

So the dreams they had of sharing a life with this person can't come true even if they tried to share a life with this person because the person they thought they were sharing a life with doesn't exist.

And then they find someone who really is like the person that they thought they were sharing their life with; only its another person. This happened for both parties.
I did not exaggerate; it was your statement that she brought it upon herself.
__________________
"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
  #511  
Old 07-27-2008, 03:09 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monika_ View Post
It's one thing to understand that a man is complicated, and quite another to realize that your husband may seek emotional support outside the marriage..
Do you have any evidence that Diana wasn't the first to seek emotional support outside the marriage, if by emotional support you mean sex, (the two don't necessarily go hand in hand). Were you perhaps in Diana's bedroom, the barracks?
__________________
  #512  
Old 07-27-2008, 09:45 PM
kimebear's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Albany, United States
Posts: 1,382
Time for a fresh start. Part 4 of the Title for Camilla thread can be found here: http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...4-a-17970.html
__________________

__________________
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 01:07 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
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria dutch royal history engagement fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri 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 olympic games olympics ottoman poland pom pregnancy president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess margriet princess mary queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola 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 04:15 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]