The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #141  
Old 11-24-2008, 09:15 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by StephS View Post
I don't know if Camilla will ever become Queen, unless by some miracle public sentiment swings back her way. At the most, I think there'll be a situation similar to the one with the Queen and Prince Philip, where she might get to be called Your Majesty but without the title of Queen.
Camilla cannot be addressed as "Your Majesty" unless she is HM The Queen (as the wife of The King) or HM Queen Camilla (as a dowager queen). If she becomes "HRH The Princess Consort", she will be a princess of the UK in her own right and addressed as "Your Royal Highness".

Philip was never addressed as anything but "Your Royal Highness". He was created a royal duke upon marriage by George VI, and later a Prince of the UK by The Queen in 1957.
__________________

__________________
  #142  
Old 11-25-2008, 02:02 AM
StephS's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Arvada, United States
Posts: 18
Huh. There was a webpage I was reading linked to one of the Royalty discussion forums, and it said something about Prince Philip having the right to be called "Your Majesty" without having the actual title of King. I'm not sure which forum it came from; there's another forum I belong to that has a lot of links about what the titles are and stuff like that.

Okay, I found the site where I got the information about Prince Philip having the right to be addressed as Your Majesty without the title of King. I'll post the link to the site later, but in the meantime, here's the paragraph I pulled the information from:

Quote:
His Majesty, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh
The spouse of the reigning monarch generally receives the honorific His Majesty or Her Majesty. However, he or she does not necessarily gain the title of queen or king. Prince Philip was born a prince of Denmark and Greece, but renounced those titles. His British titles are created, designed in acknowledgment of his marriage to the Heiress Presumptive and her later ascension to the throne.
__________________

__________________
  #143  
Old 11-25-2008, 02:51 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by StephS View Post
Okay, I found the site where I got the information about Prince Philip having the right to be addressed as Your Majesty without the title of King. I'll post the link to the site later, but in the meantime, here's the paragraph I pulled the information from:

With a male spouse, in Britain, this hasn't been the normal case at all (I can't think of anywhere where that is the case but I only really care about the British RF so I won't say for sure about other monarchies).

The Queens' Consort of Britain who have been married have had two types of husbands:

Mary I - her husband did have the title King but he was about to be King of Spain in his own right.

Mary II - her husband shared the throne with her, as he was very high in the line of succession in his own right (about 3rd or 4th or something) and then kept the throne anyway.

Anne - her husband was definitely only ever an HRH.

Victoria - she wanted her husband given the title of King Consort and the Prime Minister of her told her very succinctly that that wasn't possible so he was HRH

Elizabeth - Philip was born and HRH, ceased to be one for about 10 years and then was regranted it.

Please post the actual URL and not just the quote so people here can actually assess where you are getting this information.

It goes against everything I have ever read or studied about the titles in Britian.


It is also interesting that I put your paragraph into google and got no matches so I would really like the URL of the website.
__________________
  #144  
Old 11-25-2008, 04:35 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,235
I found that paragraph here. Simply put, it's wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Elizabeth - Philip was born and HRH, ceased to be one for about 10 years and then was regranted it.
That was the title of Prince, not the HRH. He wasn't an HRH for a little while (although some people think he never really gave it up since all he really did was stop using it, but that was good enough for him so it's good enough for me), but George VI gave it back to him pretty quick after he lost it (it was all in 1947, IIRC). Even then, nobody really looked at what was signed and kept calling him Prince Philip for those 10 years when they shouldn't have. They even called him that in official letters patent, so it wasn't all that well-observed.
__________________
  #145  
Old 11-25-2008, 04:40 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post


Elizabeth - Philip was born and HRH, ceased to be one for about 10 years and then was regranted it.
Philip was born a HRh of Greece, a foreign title that is only recognized in Britain as long as the holder is a foreign national. Philip applied for the British citizenship, so lost according to British law his Royal title. Same happened to all foreign princesses married to British princes (they got British HRH as spouses of princes at the same moment they lost their own, because on marrying they changed their nationality). Other case was Princess Ekaterina of Greece who married a British major and became a British citizen, she was granted the title and rank of a duke's daughter on her marriage to Major Brandram and became Lady Katherine Brandram as a British citizen.

So Philip lost his HRH when he became the British citizen Mr. Philip Mountbatten. But on the eve of his wedding, a very short time later, to Princess Elizabeth, the king created him HRH The Duke of Edinburgh. Which gave him back the right to a HRH but did not make him into a Prince of the Uk. Since then it is clear that creating HRH is a personal right of the monarch, as there was a precedence that the king can refuse the wife of a prince her style (The Duchess of Windsor) and can grant the style even though the person is no prince of the UK (Philip). And short before the divorces of Sarah and Diana, there was a decreet that former wifes should loose their titles on divorce. Which IMHO means that if Charles died before he became king and Camilla as his widow decided to remarry, she could keep the title HRH. But am not sure about that.
__________________
'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.
  #146  
Old 11-25-2008, 04:58 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,449
Sorry - as soon as I started to read your posts I realised what I had done - confused his HRH with his Prince title and simply had it round the wrong way.

He was born both an HRH and a Prince and was regranted HRH after giving it up - the fact that George VI saw a need to regrant it along with the Queen making her announcement in 1957 makes it pretty clear to me that he must have done something official to give up the right to use both the HRH and the Prince before his marriage. I am aware that there is no offiical document or statement available to the public to confirm this but the evidence of the grants by George VI and Elizabeth II says that something happened (of course the Prince title in 1957 was Prince of the UK etc but would that have been necessary if he had never done something to renounce his prince title in 1946/7?).

Again I must apologise for getting the terms mixed up in my post as I am fully aware of what happened and simply wrote it the wrong way.

However, I am still waiting for the URL to the paragraph posted in the post to which I was replying as a google search of the paragraph reveals nothing.

As a High School teacher I regularly do google searches of entire paragraphs to check for plagiarism in students' work so am familiar with the process and the paragraph doesn't come up in the words used or anything similar.

If anyone does know where this information is I would love to read it as it is just plain wrong.
__________________
  #147  
Old 11-25-2008, 06:12 AM
Menarue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cascais, Portugal
Posts: 2,155
I am sorry about typing George V instead of VI..... it happens.
If I remember rightly the wish of Queen Victoria was carried out, but Albert not used until George VI as a name to call the prince by. When there are so many names an Albert can be slipped in the middle. Wasn´t the Queen the first not to get Victoria slipped in? That was disregarding Q.Vic´s wish (demand) or is there a Victoria somewhere.
Edward VIII was an interesting example, he was known by the last of his string of names - David.
Sorry if this is off topic but I have been reading all posts carefully and go back to what I really think - Queen Camilla it will be.
__________________
  #148  
Old 11-25-2008, 06:43 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,449
The present Queen is the first major member of the RF not to have either Victoria or Albert in her name - Elizabeth Alexandra Mary are her names.

I believe George V commented that he didn't think it was necessary to include the Victoria. She did insist on her descendents in the BRF during her lifetime but after that it sort of disappeared. I don't know how insistent Edward VII was.
__________________
  #149  
Old 11-25-2008, 06:55 AM
Menarue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cascais, Portugal
Posts: 2,155
I think Edward VII was being conscientous and carried out his mother´s wish. From what we can read his mother´s obsessive preoccupation with Albert´s memory made the filial fondness their had for him recede a little if not a lot.
__________________
  #150  
Old 11-25-2008, 09:20 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
Funny how you left this part out of your reply.
I left nothing out of my reply as everyone is able to see!
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
Have you perhaps met Camilla and discussed the roll with her that you are an authority? It seems we are back to the 'is there a statement from Camilla' otherwise it's giggles and whistles. Are there books to judge her by, yes, most of them in my library!:-) But you keep posting that you dont consider them truthful. I find this very interesting. These books have been exhaustively vetted for libel. Yet you continually question their veracity
I never make a claim I am unwilling to 'prove'. If you believe that books are 'vetted' for libel and then not printed, you are mistaken. I haven't asked for a statement from Camilla, YOU keep suggesting that is what YOU read in my posts. I ask again, with all the evidence I have provided, the constant repeat of posts which you seem unable to comprehend, where have I said that only a statement is acceptable?

I'm quite certain your 'library' is full of books, which ones would not be hard to guess, sadly
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter
Here we go again. What book or author do you accept as being truthful and accurate Skydragon? Because you make a career on this board of arguing every quote from every book that is anything other than a glowing review of Charles and Camilla. Once again you are back to 'nothing other than a statement from Charles or Camilla is definative'...because they dont have an axe to grind, right....
Quote:
Originally Posted by skydragon
Did you read the post, because it would appear not from your reply, (what quote, what book am I disagreeing with and where on earth does it say anything about a definitive statement from anyone?)for your edification I repeat it here
Quote:
Originally Posted by princessistanbul View Post
I hope only Duchess... all time
She's not fit for "Queen" title
to which I replied
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
And you know this how? Have you perhaps met her and discussed the role with her, is there a book we can read to judge her by?
Quote:
However IF you know of a book giving details on what constitutes being fit to have Queen title, I am sure we would all love to hear about it!
Perhaps now we can move on because this is becoming seriously boring!
__________________
  #151  
Old 11-25-2008, 09:27 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by StephS View Post
Huh. There was a webpage I was reading...
This is the second time you have posted an unsourced website "quote" that is completely incorrect. I'd suggest you find more reliable and accurate sites to quote from.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
  #152  
Old 11-25-2008, 03:14 PM
StephS's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Arvada, United States
Posts: 18
Understanding The Royal Family | Lifescript.com

If I actually had the time and the money to undertake the kind of research you all seem to be suggesting, I'd do so. Right now, I've got a job that pays jack and a stack of bills and unpaid overdue fines at the library that I'm drowning in, so forgive me if I just go with the nearest source of information I can find on the web instead of camping out at the library or the nearest Barnes & Noble.
__________________
  #153  
Old 11-25-2008, 03:37 PM
Thomas Parkman's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Columbia, United States
Posts: 531
Well, good people, I would refer you to good old Harry VIII of blessed (?) memory. Now there was a king who did his duty and had a grand total of six wives, all of whom were in their day, however short or fleeting or fatal it miight have been, were known and bowed to as the Queen of England, for the simple reason they were married to the King of England.

So all this nonsense about a lesser title is just that. Her
Royal Higness, Camilla, Princess of Wales should be known by her legal name and title. And if and when the time comes and Charles becomes Charles III she should be Queen Camilla, pure and simple. I simply cannot understand why people still cling to the past over this. What happned happened. It is no worse and certainly a lot better than a lot of cases I could name. I suppose it is just very difficult to let go of fantasies and romantic dreams. But I would make a guess that Katherine Howard and Anne Bolyen would have loved to have had the fate of Diana, without the automobile accident of course, but then they didn't have cars, over what actually happened to them. Cheers.
__________________
  #154  
Old 11-25-2008, 03:49 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 237
Hi Thomas,

Thank you for an intelligent and steadied reply to this "great question".......

The King's wife is The Queen and that's that.
And, if I were her, I'd start calling myself Princess of Wales right now.

Now, I'm no fan of Charles and Camilla, but we're stuck with them and they have positions to uphold in the Realm and so let's all suck it in and start calling them what their correct titles are.

Larry
__________________
  #155  
Old 11-25-2008, 04:04 PM
kimebear's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Albany, United States
Posts: 1,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by StephS View Post
Understanding The Royal Family | Lifescript.com

If I actually had the time and the money to undertake the kind of research you all seem to be suggesting, I'd do so. Right now, I've got a job that pays jack and a stack of bills and unpaid overdue fines at the library that I'm drowning in, so forgive me if I just go with the nearest source of information I can find on the web instead of camping out at the library or the nearest Barnes & Noble.
I'm sorry you came across such an article. The liberties it takes with actual fact are epic. Besides the inaccurate portrayal of Prince Phillip being titled as His Majesty, I'm going to have to call BS on the idea of Diana as a cocktail waitress.

If that had been accurate, the whole conversation of what Camilla's title will be would be moot. The BRF surely never would have allowed their son to marry a cocktail waitress, Lady or not, so there would be no marriages, no affairs and no hostility.
__________________
  #156  
Old 11-25-2008, 04:12 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by StephS View Post
Understanding The Royal Family | Lifescript.com

If I actually had the time and the money to undertake the kind of research you all seem to be suggesting, I'd do so. Right now, I've got a job that pays jack and a stack of bills and unpaid overdue fines at the library that I'm drowning in, so forgive me if I just go with the nearest source of information I can find on the web instead of camping out at the library or the nearest Barnes & Noble.
I have read the site (thank you for providing the link - a very easy thing to do and probably easier and quicker than copying and pasting the paragraph).

Even the comments at the end of the article point out the the 'His Majesty' title for Philip is 'incorrect and lazy'.

Further online research would have very quickly shown you that this is NOT the case. A wife of a King is always a Queen but the husband of a Queen Consort is rarely a King, unless a King in his own right e.g. Philip II of Spain and William III (whose place in the order of succession in his own right was either immediately after his sister-in-law Anne or after her children all of whom kept dying.)

Getting defensive about being asked for sources will make your time here unhappy but if you have sources, or links, it makes things easier. Please understand that many people here have been studying and following the royals for more years than they (or I) am prepared to admit and thus really do know what they are talking about. If you want to learn and enjoy the conversations here you will need to realise that sometimes people will challenge you for a source.
__________________
  #157  
Old 11-25-2008, 07:34 PM
CasiraghiTrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burbank, United States
Posts: 6,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vecchiolarry View Post
Now, I'm no fan of Charles and Camilla, but we're stuck with them and they have positions to uphold in the Realm and so let's all suck it in and start calling them what their correct titles are.

Larry
Hi Larry,
I respect your desire to call Camilla by her senior title. However, personally, I like to call people by what they say they wish to be called. From whatever influence it arose, Camilla's officially acknowledged preference is to be called by her secondary title, so that is what I choose to call her. Until she or the CH staff issue another statement suggesting she wants to be called HRH The Princess of Wales, I will call her the Duchess, of Cornwall, and Rothesay.
Ashley
P.S. It is a true pleasure to "meet" you.
__________________
Chewsteraghi on Tumblr. Schmichaelira on Twitter. Tumblr aka obsessivechewsteraghidisorder. Be warned: I'm weird.
  #158  
Old 11-26-2008, 06:21 AM
lucien's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 6,210
Dearest Charles and Camilla:

Charles & Camilla

courtesy Royalblog.
__________________
  #159  
Old 11-26-2008, 09:07 AM
jcbcode99's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Richmond Area, United States
Posts: 1,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by StephS View Post
Understanding The Royal Family | Lifescript.com

If I actually had the time and the money to undertake the kind of research you all seem to be suggesting, I'd do so. Right now, I've got a job that pays jack and a stack of bills and unpaid overdue fines at the library that I'm drowning in, so forgive me if I just go with the nearest source of information I can find on the web instead of camping out at the library or the nearest Barnes & Noble.
It is hard to seperate all the information out there sometimes, isn't it? The page you presented was actually quite interesting, but not necessarily correct and that's perfectly fine I think that one of our side missions here at TRF is to find incorrect articles/webpages, etc... and make sure that everyone who loves the Royals and their history as much as we do has accurate information. So, I thank you for finding us another one and beginning a lively discussion . Titles really and truly are a fascinating topic!
__________________
Janet

"We make a living by what we do; we make a life by what we give" Winston Churchill
  #160  
Old 11-26-2008, 12:45 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 237
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
__________________

__________________
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 bourbon-parma 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 engagement fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta elena infanta sofia jewellery 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 pieter van vollenhoven pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan 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 princess of asturias queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:02 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]