The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #41  
Old 11-14-2008, 09:30 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
I wonder if this whole lesser-title business is because of the irregular marriage issue. They weren't married in church, which is an unusual thing for the heir to the throne. Perhaps some sort of deal was worked out behind the scenes. Too bad I likely won't be around when the time comes for the correspondence about the wedding negotiations are available.
I can well imagine that as a decent man Charles realised that asking for a church wedding would create a difficult situation for the church officials, especially as he himself probably was well aware that the main point was not that Camilla was divorced but that he wanted to marry the woman who had been exposed by the then wife as the reason for the marital problems. Which, even if it is not the whole truth, is sufficient enough to give clerics some serious headaches.

Plus Charles with his known notion of preferring to be the "defender of faiths" rather than the "defender of the faith" might equally not been overly keen on being married in church but might have preferred to show that the civil wedding is an option for all britons including their future king. who knows...
__________________

__________________
'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.
  #42  
Old 11-15-2008, 09:45 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Taipei, Taiwan
Posts: 2
Devorsed!!!

I think that Camilla is doing a great job, but as to the title I firmly believe that the King or Queen should be the devender of the faith. As Camilla is a devorsed woman she should or cannot be queen. Now, I'm sure that Prince Charles if he is king can change these historical royal laws, but this should not be to his or his wife's benifit, but to the kings and queens who will reighn after him.
__________________

__________________
  #43  
Old 11-15-2008, 04:49 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
There is no doubt that when Charles succeeds to the throne, Camilla will legally be Queen. If Charles takes the view at the time (despite what was said at time of the engagement of C&C) that he would prefer that she be known as Princess Consort, he can issue letters patent to the effect. Legally, she would continue to be Queen but just be referred to as Princess Consort - just like the current arrangement where she is Princess of Wales, but prefers to use one of her lesser titles.

Some might argue of how she might use a lesser title that does not exist. As King, Charles will be font of all honour, and there will be nothing stopping him from creating the title of Princess Consort for her to use.
The only problem with this scenario is that once her husband is King, Camilla can only be styled as Queen. The wife of the King is Queen Consort, not a Princess.

Camilla holds no titles of her own, other than what flows to her as Charles' wife. Being known as "HRH The Princess Consort" requires him to create a title via letters patent that essentially grants her a title and rank separate from him in her own right.

Since she will legally be Queen, Parliament would have to intervene with legislation permitting her to reliniquish her title and rank in favor of a new one created by The Sovereign.
__________________
  #44  
Old 11-15-2008, 05:04 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
The only problem with this scenario is that once her husband is King, Camilla can only be styled as Queen. The wife of the King is Queen Consort, not a Princess.

Camilla holds no titles of her own, other than what flows to her as Charles' wife. Being known as "HRH The Princess Consort" requires him to create a title via letters patent that essentially grants her a title and rank separate from him in her own right.
Why?

"HM The King requests that HM The Queen be known informally as HRH The Princess Consort."

Who's going to stop them? There's no criminal intent, so I assume it isn't illegal. OK, so it doesn't make a particle of sense, but the way they've been faffing around with styles and titles recently, I can't see that being a deal-breaker.
__________________
  #45  
Old 11-15-2008, 05:04 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacknch View Post
I think there is a distinction between the words "title" (the name of the person) and "rank" (how high up the heirarchy they are). Therefore, the Duke of Windsor's wife became the Duchess of Windsor automatically on their marriage as is customery for a woman to take her husband's title, but the HRH is the rank is I believe a personal gift of the monarch and is not automatically added on to the title as a right.
Not true. The style and title flow together with the appropriate rank upon marriage. Wallis married a son of the Sovereign and was automatically entitled to the title of "HRH The Princess Edward". Since George VI created his brother a royal duke, his wife was entitled to share his rank as a royal duchess and by styled "HRH The Duchess of Windsor".

The justification for the 1937 Letters Patent was that Edward had renounced his future descendants' rights to the throne through the Act of Abdication, in return for being exempted from the Royal Marriages Act. As such, George VI issued letters patent limiting the rank and style of HRH to his brother alone, taking the position that The Duke's wife and future children would not be members of the royal family.

There is no question The Sovereign had the right to issue letters patent denying royal rank to The Duke's wife. The Act of Abdication was an extraordinary breach in the line of succession.
__________________
  #46  
Old 11-15-2008, 05:08 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lancaster View Post
I think that Camilla is doing a great job, but as to the title I firmly believe that the King or Queen should be the devender of the faith. As Camilla is a devorsed woman she should or cannot be queen. Now, I'm sure that Prince Charles if he is king can change these historical royal laws, but this should not be to his or his wife's benifit, but to the kings and queens who will reighn after him.
As the very first 'Defender of the Faith' was divorced not once but twice, divorce shouldn't enter into the equation at all.

There is no legislation that says that a Queen can't be divorced.

In 1936, there was an argument put forward that the people wouldn't accept a twice divorced woman (as part of a smoke screen to get rid of an unsatisfactory, to some anyway, king). The times then were also that divorced people had a stigma attached to them. These days about 1/3 marriages end in divorce and there is no stigma attached.

There is no reason why a divorced woman can't be Queen or Queen Consort.

Camilla should be Queen as she would be the wife of the King. There is no other qualification needed.
__________________
  #47  
Old 11-15-2008, 05:09 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
Why?

"HM The King requests that HM The Queen be known informally as HRH The Princess Consort."

Who's going to stop them? There's no criminal intent, so I assume it isn't illegal.
Parliament and the Crown Commonwealth must approve any change in the title and succession of the monarchy, including The King's wife. If they agree after consultation with the PM there is no issue, then fine.

I think they will be reluctant to allow a precedent to be created without legislation being passed from a constitutional standpoint.
__________________
  #48  
Old 11-15-2008, 05:16 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 5,217
Perhaps I'll throw a spanner into the works. Whether or not it was Diana fanatics who contributed to the hysteria about C & C's wedding, the fact is that Camilla broke life-long vows that she made before God and her family and friends when she had an extra-marital affair with Prince Charles. Had Charles never been married, Camilla's adultery would still be wrong. Things can be forgiven by the parties involved, but there are still consequences to actions. Camilla makes a fine support to Prince Charles; I certainly don't disagree with that. However, there's something about her receiving the title of Queen that bothers me. The title of Princess Consort is in keeping with the role that she's carved out as the Duchess of Cornwall--being a supportive presence even without the Princess of Wales title and all the formality that's involved with it.
__________________
  #49  
Old 11-15-2008, 05:22 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Charles broke the same vows, though. I don't think it's fair to say that Charles can be King but Camilla needs to be punished with a lower position, especially when it's the monarch, not the consort, who's taking on the position of Supreme Governor of the Church.
__________________
  #50  
Old 11-15-2008, 07:12 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 5,217
I don't think that consequence is the same as punishment. I think that she's been "punished" enough, having been held up to ridicule for years and horrible cartoons made of her, etc. I've had the impression, though I could be wrong, that Camilla wants to stay in the background and not take the titles that are her right by marriage. In some ways, I think that she's more PR-savvy than the Prince of Wales.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
Charles broke the same vows, though. I don't think it's fair to say that Charles can be King but Camilla needs to be punished with a lower position, especially when it's the monarch, not the consort, who's taking on the position of Supreme Governor of the Church.
__________________
  #51  
Old 11-15-2008, 08:11 PM
wymanda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
--being a supportive presence even without the Princess of Wales title and all the formality that's involved with it.
She is not "without the Princess of Wales title". She has chosen not to use it. The moment she & Charles were pronounced husband and wife she took on all of his rank, style & title. That is Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothsay, Countess of Chester etc etc etc............
__________________
Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
  #52  
Old 11-15-2008, 08:35 PM
Lilla's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lancaster View Post
As Camilla is a devorsed woman she should or cannot be queen.
Oops....is this 1850 or 2008?

I am a Dane and as such it isn't my business to interfere with the affairs of the British. But having a King whos wife didn't have the title of Queen, but something else....IMO would be presenting her to the rest of the world as being unworthy of that title.

Being devorsed IMO isn't something that makes a person unworthy. Not at all.

Continuing to maintain a marriage that dosen't work is unworthy - it is actually plain stupid.

Of course a devorsed woman can become Queen, if she has the qualities needed and does wonderful work for her country.
__________________
  #53  
Old 11-15-2008, 08:46 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 5,217
Yes, I'm aware of that. My point was that she seems to prefer using the lesser title of Duchess of Cornwall.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wymanda View Post
She is not "without the Princess of Wales title". She has chosen not to use it. The moment she & Charles were pronounced husband and wife she took on all of his rank, style & title. That is Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothsay, Countess of Chester etc etc etc............
__________________
  #54  
Old 11-15-2008, 08:53 PM
Lilla's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
My point was that she seems to prefer using the lesser title of Duchess of Cornwall.
Or she did so because of the sentiment some British still, at the time, had towards Princess Diana.

IMO it is time for those British to start looking forwards. Having Camilla as Queen when time comes will be of greater benefit to GB - then still mourning about someone beloved who died years ago.
__________________
  #55  
Old 11-15-2008, 08:55 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 5,217
To me, the issue isn't that she's divorced. If if were a case that her husband cheated on her and so she divorced him, that would be a different matter. My opinion is that adultery is an extemely serious matter and shouldn't simply be swept under the carpet.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilla View Post
Oops....is this 1850 or 2008?


Being devorsed IMO isn't something that makes a person unworthy. Not at all.

Continuing to maintain a marriage that dosen't work is unworthy - it is actually plain stupid.

Of course a devorsed woman can become Queen, if she has the qualities needed and does wonderful work for her country.
__________________
  #56  
Old 11-15-2008, 09:15 PM
Lilla's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
My opinion is that adultery is an extemely serious matter and shouldn't simply be swept under the carpet.
Adultery appears in marriages that doesn't function. I really don't care who committed the adultry - husband or wife. It wouldn't have been committed if the marriage worked.

Punishment for adultry isn't even 1850.......it's stepping right back into the dark Middel Ages.

If she committed adultry in her marriage to Charles it would be quit a different matter - then she was not worthy to be Queen.
__________________
  #57  
Old 11-15-2008, 10:15 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
To me, the issue isn't that she's divorced. If if were a case that her husband cheated on her and so she divorced him, that would be a different matter. My opinion is that adultery is an extemely serious matter and shouldn't simply be swept under the carpet.
No one is sweeping it under the carpet - afterall the Prince of Wales admitted it publicly, as did his first wife. No one though seems to suggest that had Diana still be married to Charles that she wasn't worthy of being queen, despite being a serial adulterer.

Adultery is a matter between the couple within the marriage and shouldn't be something on which the rest of us have a say - advise yes, say no.

I know many wonderful people who have committed adultery. Some have worked through whatever was wrong in the marriage that saw them stray, some got divorced, either way I don't hold it against them.

The very basis of the Christian teachings is forgiveness of sins but it seems that the people who keep bringing up the church and Charles' future position in the Church of England are the ones who least practice that essential aspect of Christianity - forgetting one thing that is said in the Bible - 'vengeance is mine saith the Lord'. I am not pointing the finger at anyone here at all. But I am saying that if people are using the Church and the teachings of the church about the sanctity of marriage to stop Camilla becoming Queen then they should have a very good look at themselves and read their Bible a bit better and try some good old fashioned Christian forgiveness.
__________________
  #58  
Old 11-15-2008, 10:53 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,983
Though currently in favour of the intended alternative, I think that if it were to remain an unsort topic in say 5 to 10 years from now (the Queen's health proceeding), then even I should be of the opinion that for what will be a comparatively short reign, that any such move to re-establish this particular reigning consorts title would be, by then, a most wearisome display of antipathy.

If Charles succeeded tomorrow then for certain, I'd like to see her created Princess Consort, purely for the reasons I voiced some time ago within this very thread. But as time progresses, I do contemplate the prerequisites of it's inference and needless to say, my reasons and the reasons behind the proposal are entirely dissimilar.

That would surely make for a rather bitter-sweet reality, I suppose you could say.
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
  #59  
Old 11-15-2008, 10:54 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
Parliament and the Crown Commonwealth must approve any change in the title and succession of the monarchy, including The King's wife. If they agree after consultation with the PM there is no issue, then fine.

I think they will be reluctant to allow a precedent to be created without legislation being passed from a constitutional standpoint.
I honestly don't think most Parliamentarians in any of the countries involved care or really even know, myself. A few will froth at the mouth for a few weeks, a few will say just remove all of their titles and be gone with the lot, and the rest probably won't know that they should be involved.
__________________
  #60  
Old 11-15-2008, 11:04 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 237
Hi,

It would seem that everyone involved in this marital highjinks was guilty.
Charles, Diana, Camilla & Andrew. They were all unfaithful to their marriage vows and yet, now, they all get along; apparently even Diana smiled and tolerated Camilla in the end. So, who are we to judge???

Andrew Parker Bowles was even at Prince Charles' birthday party; so they're all playing 'happy familys' now.....

If the Royal Family & government of the day want Camilla to be "Queen", then, she will be queen. And, we have nothing to say about it. End of story!!!

BTW, I really have no admiration for any of these characters and I hope that The Queen lives for at least 20 more years and a Queen Camilla & a King Charles won't matter..

Larry
__________________

__________________
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
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 laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess marilene princess mary 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 04:04 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]