The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #181  
Old 11-29-2008, 11:34 PM
jcbcode99's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Richmond Area, United States
Posts: 1,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vecchiolarry View Post
Hi CasiraghiTrio,

Dear Ashley -
Yes, I agree with you that we should all call Camilla by whatever title she approves....
But, my wish is that she, herself, or the Royal Household would want her to be called by her 'senior title'...
It just doesn't "look right" to me that he is 'Prince of Wales' and she is 'Duchess of Cornwall' - - it all appears so very morganatic!!!
And, we are told that morganatic doesn't exist in British law....

I'd have a lot more respect for her and him if they just came out and announced that she would now be called The Princess of Wales. And, the 'Diana camp' be damned!!
Or better still - - have The Queen announce it....

Just my humble opinion!!

Larry
Nicely said
__________________

__________________
Janet

"We make a living by what we do; we make a life by what we give" Winston Churchill
  #182  
Old 11-30-2008, 01:06 AM
georgiea's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A, United States
Posts: 1,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacknch View Post
What would people think if within say the next two years Charles becomes king, William becomes Prince of Wales and marries Kate Middleton and she then becomes Princess of Wales - will people forever associate the Princess of Wales title with Diana?

I don't think when or if the titles, Prince and Princess of Wales, are used by Prince William and his wife they will have any problems from the British people that Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall would have.

Prince William's wife will be compared to Diana, the Princess of Wales, but her past is different from the Duchess and the British people will accept the title for her. I only think the title is off limits to the Duchess of Cornwall because of the mistress problem.

I really believe that Camilla with be Queen if the crowning happens a while from now.
__________________

__________________
Watch your actions, for they become your habits. Watch your habits because they become your character. Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.
  #183  
Old 11-30-2008, 09:23 PM
scooter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by georgiea View Post
I don't think when or if the titles, Prince and Princess of Wales, are used by Prince William and his wife they will have any problems from the British people that Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall would have.

Prince William's wife will be compared to Diana, the Princess of Wales, but her past is different from the Duchess and the British people will accept the title for her. I only think the title is off limits to the Duchess of Cornwall because of the mistress problem.
Exactly. ITA^^^
__________________
  #184  
Old 11-30-2008, 10:52 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,983
Quote:
I'd have a lot more respect for her and him if they just came out and announced that she would now be called The Princess of Wales.
It's admirable to make a decision and stick by it, I'd have thought...

To suggest the Duchess now, after 3 or so years, be officially known as Princess of Wales is, imo, a particularly rediculous motion. Infact, it would make them look like fools, and it's quite easy for someone on the outer to propose such a move, when it infact would bear no consequence on them.

It is relatively clear from your above statement that public approval is something you yourself don't have to contend with, like most of us here, I'm sure.

The 'issue' is not what title(s) she holds, inherently by way of marriage, but the title by which she is known.

For all concerned, not least of all for Camilla herself, the appropriate choice was made. One could not begin to fathom the pressure and press she'd have received if she were to have used the Princely title, whether hers to use or not. Any real chance of 'making it her own' (her role), would have been all but ruined from the get go. It's hardly fair in many ways, but never before had their been a situation such as theirs, and so scrupulously publicized at that.
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
  #185  
Old 12-01-2008, 12:37 AM
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

never before had their been a situation such as theirs, and so scrupulously publicized at that.
Truer words were never spoken on this thread.

I do think that what VeccioLarry was saying, which I applauded, was that opting to have Camilla to "be known as" HRH The Duchess of Cornwall was basically just leaving the door open for her "to be known as" HRH The Princess Consort. I do think that protocal should have been maintained--regardless of situation. After all, I am a second wife, and go by "Mrs. John Doe". Imagine if, because my husband's family or our local townspeople had decided that I was just horrible and not as good as my husband's ex-wife, that I had to be known by a different name. I just don't find it to be fair--regardless of whether or not it was the most practical thing to do at the time.
However, I have said in previous posts that I do think that giving Camilla the option to be HRH The Duchess of Cornwall gave her an immeasurable opportunity to create an identity seperate from Diana, which has been quite successful. I think that the title of "Duchess" suits her quite well; in my opinion, Princess would not suit Camilla. I'm sure she would wear it well and with grace and dignity, but she has taken this not often used title of Duchess of Cornwall and really created something just for her. And, if Charles does decide that out of deference for Wales to no longer allow the use of the title, then Camilla would have been a trendsetter in some ways as well. However, I would prefer that she be known as HM Queen Camilla rather than HRH The Princess Consort--simple because I do think that she deserves the honor.
__________________
Janet

"We make a living by what we do; we make a life by what we give" Winston Churchill
  #186  
Old 12-01-2008, 03:56 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
The question about "deserving" the honour:

lately we had some articles which brought up information about Queen Mum that have previously appeared in reknown biographies by Bradford and Brandreth, so seem to be true, at least to a certain extent.

In it is claimed that Queen Mum had strong prejudices and acted on them and that she treated prince Philip like a "mother-in-law from hell" while using her influence on the then still young Elizabeth to stay the force behind the throne - using her influence to her own advantage or against other people like poor Wallis Windsor.

Still noone would say that somebody with such a sometimes nasty behaviour should not have been Her Majesty as she didn't deserve this honour. We don't know much about Camilla but the rare first-hand information about what she does and what she says shows a person who does not have vindictive character traits - vindictiveness always backfires, IMHO and we would know by now. IMHO it shows how deep the respect and reference Queen Mum could install in people has been that only now people start to tell more about the "Iron Fist" in her velvet gloves they experienced and witnessed. But still people started to talk and they would have talked about Camilla if there was something to tell by now.
__________________
'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.
  #187  
Old 12-01-2008, 04:16 AM
Menarue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cascais, Portugal
Posts: 2,155
I agree with everything above except "poor Wallis Windsor" she was not a person to be pitied, she took the King of England and turned him into a performing circus dog that did nothing but wait on her every whim and go to parties and design jewellery for her. From the moment he met her he never seemed to be able to think for himself.
She, in turn, never in her whole life quite "got" what a "King of England" was.

Queen Consort Camilla, of course, what other title could there be for her when her husband comes to the throne? I definitely agree that they should have come out with the title Princess of Wales when she married the Prince, the Diana myth should be forgotten as quickly as possible. A beautiful young woman who nearly caused the fall of the RF, in fact very much as Wallis did.
__________________
  #188  
Old 12-01-2008, 04:32 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,983
Quote:
I do think that what VeccioLarry was saying, which I applauded, was that opting to have Camilla to "be known as" HRH The Duchess of Cornwall was basically just leaving the door open for her "to be known as" HRH The Princess Consort.
And as that seems to be their intent (at the present time), then they have gone about 'the' business in an appropriate manner.

Quote:
I do think that protocal should have been maintained--regardless of situation.
Alas, it's easy for us to say such things but in actuality, the implementation of protocol is, and has, been detemined not solely by the pages of history from which they were observed, but by the circumstances which sourround the institution (those who make it) of the day. Things change, and on occasion that means protocol, aswell.

Quote:
After all, I am a second wife, and go by "Mrs. John Doe". Imagine if, because my husband's family or our local townspeople had decided that I was just horrible and not as good as my husband's ex-wife, that I had to be known by a different name.
A different name? It is but a 'name' her husband holds and so is not so dissimilar afterall. She remains Princess of Wales; it's just not her primal title in an official capacity.

Quote:
I just don't find it to be fair--regardless of whether or not it was the most practical thing to do at the time.
Whether deemed practical by some and impractical by others, it is what it is and was done for a reason. A reason that clearly needed an unprecedented alternative, as seen in the best interests of those concerned and dare I say, the monarchy.

Quote:
However, I have said in previous posts that I do think that giving Camilla the option to be HRH The Duchess of Cornwall gave her an immeasurable opportunity to create an identity seperate from Diana, which has been quite successful.
Absolutely! It was the right move to have been made, imo.

Quote:
but she has taken this not often used title of Duchess of Cornwall and really created something just for her.
As I'm sure would be the case if she were created Princess Consort.

Quote:
And, if Charles does decide that out of deference for Wales to no longer allow the use of the title, then Camilla would have been a trendsetter in some ways as well.
In a matter of speaking, yes.

Quote:
However, I would prefer that she be known as HM Queen Camilla rather than HRH The Princess Consort--simple because I do think that she deserves the honor.
We know...hehe...
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
  #189  
Old 12-01-2008, 05:56 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menarue View Post
I agree with everything above except "poor Wallis Windsor" she was not a person to be pitied,
I don't think that The Duke and Duchess of Windsor were treated properly by the RF, there was quite some spite involved and as historians have proved, a lot of it came directly from Queen Mum, with the establishment following her lead. So when it comes to that, IMHO Wallis Windsor was "poor Wallis".
__________________
'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.
  #190  
Old 12-01-2008, 06:27 AM
Menarue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cascais, Portugal
Posts: 2,155
Wallis was nice to the Queen Mother?
They were as different as chalk and cheese, a worldly adventurer and a well brought up Scottish/English Lady. The Queen mother knew that it would be a terrible strain on her husband being King, it was a nightmare for him just to make a speech because of his voice impediment. As she said, she had had a nice life until Wallis appeared, she was perfectly satisfied being the Duchess of York.
I think that we are inclined to forget at the time Wallis was being considered by Edward to be the future Queen of England she was still a married woman and her husband was still very much in her life. Documents have been disclosed recently that say she was being investigated and it is said that she had another lover at the same time as Edward. When Edward ,on her advice, became King, he was cutting down on expenditure such as hand soap and beer for his workers, but he was spending a fortune on jewellery for Wallis (which was probably not her fault).
A friend of mine was the daughter of Mrs Belloc Lowndes the author, who remarked when she saw Wallis at the theatre that she thought Wallis´s jewels were so many and so big, that they were probably false, she was shocked to find they weren´t.
I am sorry this is getting off the subject of Camilla but I really feel that Wallis is not deserving of any sympathy from anyone. Her main support was her aunt Bessie Merrieweather, both money and moral but she was soon left behind.....she did send her a birthday cake for her 100th birthday though.
The Queen mother may not have been the sweet old lady that the public thought but if she didn´t like Wallis she certainly had her reasons and not all of us are sweet all the time, she had her public façade and it worked.
Hearing about her debts after her death was what surprised me most.
So that this isn´t completely off rail. Camilla will be Queen, I never though I would say this but I really think she will do very well.
__________________
  #191  
Old 12-01-2008, 06:47 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,770
I do not think there was anything wrong in the QM maintaining the image she had, or that there was anything conradictory with the image. She played the perfect Queen - always gracious in public, aware of her duty to the realm, but also aware of the constitutional constraints of her role. There was certainly a role for her - and there was a reason for Hitler referring to her as the most dangerous woman in Europe.

As regards debts at the end of her life, I think it is fair to say that expenses / cash liquidity etc were not issues that she was concerned about in her last decade or so. Her household was run in a style she was accustomed to, and thats what she had. I don't know of many 101 year olds who typically worry about radically altering their life styles. Her estate was sufficient to cover any overdrafts that may have been run up. I just hold the belief that when people get very old, it is for their children and grandchildren to take care of hem. In this case, they did, by letting her lifestyle not be affected by her dwindling cash resources.
__________________
  #192  
Old 12-01-2008, 06:56 AM
Menarue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cascais, Portugal
Posts: 2,155
Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, lived the life she had always lived and expected to live and that is how it should be for someone who was Queen of England.
__________________
  #193  
Old 12-01-2008, 07:44 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
I don't know of many 101 year olds who typically worry about radically altering their life styles. Her estate was sufficient to cover any overdrafts that may have been run up. I just hold the belief that when people get very old, it is for their children and grandchildren to take care of hem. In this case, they did, by letting her lifestyle not be affected by her dwindling cash resources.
If you don't know of many 101 year olds or even 80 years olds that have to radically alter their lifestyle, I suggest you go and see some of the folk at Age Concern, they have no option but to live according to the money in their purse!
__________________
  #194  
Old 12-01-2008, 08:06 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,770
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
If you don't know of many 101 year olds or even 80 years olds that have to radically alter their lifestyle, I suggest you go and see some of the folk at Age Concern, they have no option but to live according to the money in their purse!
You may find there is typically quite a lot of difference between the mental faculties of people at 80 and 101..... and if you have the money or you know your children will take care of your expenses, at age 101 why would you bother?
__________________
  #195  
Old 12-01-2008, 08:57 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,732
Part of The Queen Mother's cash flow problems were also attributable to the fact she transferred her own fortune (estimated at $30 million) to a trust for her great-grandchildren in 1987. The income was payable to them for their expenses via a trustee until her death. After that, the trust ended and the remaining principal was paid in equal shares to her grandchildren (with the exception of Charles).
__________________
  #196  
Old 12-01-2008, 09:36 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,770
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
Part of The Queen Mother's cash flow problems were also attributable to the fact she transferred her own fortune (estimated at $30 million) to a trust for her great-grandchildren in 1987. The income was payable to them for their expenses via a trustee until her death. After that, the trust ended and the remaining principal was paid in equal shares to her grandchildren (with the exception of Charles).
Actualy I do remember reading this a long time ago. Irrespective of what caused the cash flow shortage towards the end of her life, I am sure the QM had no doubt that her costs would be taken care of by HM!
__________________
  #197  
Old 12-01-2008, 12:10 PM
kimebear's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Albany, United States
Posts: 1,382
We are drifting. You can discuss HM The Queen Mother here:

HM Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother (1900-2002)
__________________
  #198  
Old 12-01-2008, 12:16 PM
CasiraghiTrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burbank, United States
Posts: 6,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post
As you can see here, the very first title for Charles probably was His Royal Highness Prince Charles, Earl of Merioneth.

Letters Patent 22 October 1948

In the letters patent his father is referred to as HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and his mother HRH Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh. It doesn't mention any other title for the children of said marriage than Royal Highness and the prefix prince/princess. Thus Charles surely was known by his father's secondary title, as I don't think "Duke of Edinburgh" was a Royal Dukedom such as "York", like the ones given to a son of the souverain. If so, Chrles would have been HRH prince Charles of Edinburgh?

The letters patent says: " in addition to any other appellations and titles of honour which may belong to them hereafter", so doesn't clarify this question.

The letters patent of 21. Nov. 1947 was about "granting unto Lieutenant H.R.H. Sir Philip Mountbatten, K.G., R.N. and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten the dignities of Baron Greenwich in the County of London, Earl of Merioneth and Duke of Edinburgh." In other documents the king made it clear that he didn't want to create Philip a Prince of the Uk, so I guess he was not a Royal duke like his son of York, but a Royal Highness with a peerage of duke. Thus his heir would hold his secondary title as a courtesy title in addition the the HRH prince Charles.
But Jo, wasn't the earldom of Merioneth only his courtesy title? He was not Merioneth is his own right, only by courtesy as the Duke of E's eldest son.
I thought of that before I posted about Cornwall being his first title, but then I thought since it was only by courtesy, and because no one called him that........ In fact, just before he was born the King took the liberty of making him HRH Prince so that he would not be known by the courtesy earldom. At least, that's what I thought, based on the story as told by Pimlott.
It does not matter. I'm not wanting to discuss it and certainly have no desire to argue and debate it because it's not worth it to me. I was just curious about it.

Anyway, we are all used to Camilla being Duchess of Cornwall now (we can argue that it would be better for her to use the Wales title, but in the end, everything is fine and our protests will just cause unnecessary unhappiness with something that was always fine) and then she will become Queen probably in the 2020s and the teenagers at that time will have no conscious memory of Diana. Diana will just be a figure in their modern history books.

There are more important things than Camilla's "senior title" to fight for. Keep perspective!! :)
Fight for love, prosperity, and health for all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
__________________
Chewsteraghi on Tumblr. Schmichaelira on Twitter. Tumblr aka obsessivechewsteraghidisorder. Be warned: I'm weird.
  #199  
Old 12-01-2008, 12:29 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post
Thus Charles surely was known by his father's secondary title, as I don't think "Duke of Edinburgh" was a Royal Dukedom such as "York", like the ones given to a son of the If so, Chrles would have been HRH prince Charles of Edinburgh?
"Royal dukedoms" aren't different from ordinary dukedoms except that they're held by somebody royal, and Philip was (meaning that royal dukedoms can stop being royal, as will happen when the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester die, and non-royal dukedoms can become royal, which I don't think has ever happened). That means Charles was HRH Prince Charles of Edinburgh from his birth until 1952 (when he became Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay, etc.) Anyways, it doesn't really matter what Philip was. Charles was assuredly a prince (meaning he wouldn't use the courtesy title, even if he technically held it, like every other royal heir to a dukedom), and his father (and mother) were of Edinburgh, so he was too.
__________________
  #200  
Old 12-01-2008, 03:35 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Well, they're different in that they can't be inherited by brothers and cousins like regular dukedoms. If Andrew dies before Edward, Edward doesn't inherit the York title.
__________________

__________________
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 3 Elspeth The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 511 07-27-2008 09:45 PM
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
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 dutch royal history engagement fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta elena infanta sofia 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 ottoman picture of the month pom president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden wedding william



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:06 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]