Will Charles Ever Reign?

[BeatrixFan]

Re:

undoubtedly there will be a few fanatics who will insist on calling her "Queen." just as right now there are those who like to call her "princess of wales" but they will be a small minority

We're not fanatics. We just want to see her in her rightful place. If she is married to our King then she is our Queen and to against tradition to please those stuck in the past makes a complete farce out of the Monarchy. If she isn't good enough to be Queen then she isn't good enough to Princess Consort either. She IS the Princess of Wales and I call her that because again, thats her rightful title and I refuse to go against tradition to please the ghost of a dead ex-wife.

 

[branchg]

We're not fanatics. We just want to see her in her rightful place. If she is married to our King then she is our Queen and to against tradition to please those stuck in the past makes a complete farce out of the Monarchy. If she isn't good enough to be Queen then she isn't good enough to Princess Consort either. She IS the Princess of Wales and I call her that because again, thats her rightful title and I refuse to go against tradition to please the ghost of a dead ex-wife.

I agree, although I understand why it would certainly be prudent for her to be styled at the present time as Duchess of Cornwall. Diana may be dead, but she was styled Princess of Wales and the mother of the future king. For sensitivity sake, it makes sense for now.

When Charles becomes King, however, is an entirely different matter. Diana was divorced and was never going to be Queen. Camilla is the wife of the Prince of Wales and has every right to be Queen Consort when her husband ascends the throne. In my eyes, there is no controversy there.

To start fooling around with the style and title of a female consort is to put a nail in the coffin in the monarchy. If she was worthy to marry Charles and become a Royal Highness, then she is worthy to be Queen.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Re:

For sensitivity sake, it makes sense for now.

No it doesn't. Edward VIII didn't change his title of King because his father had died and had held the same title. It's exactly the same thing here. Can the title never be used again? Must no-one else ever be known as The Princess of Wales?

Monarchs should not grovel to the people, nor should they pander to public opinion - the Princess of Wales title was Diana's while she was married to Charles. Now it is Camilla's and I think it's wrong that she uses another title - The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall. It doesn't sound as if they are married at all.

To start fooling around with the style and title of a female consort is to put a nail in the coffin in the monarchy. If she was worthy to marry Charles and become a Royal Highness, then she is worthy to be Queen.

I totally agree.

 

[branchg]

Monarchs should not grovel to the people, nor should they pander to public opinion - the Princess of Wales title was Diana's while she was married to Charles. Now it is Camilla's and I think it's wrong that she uses another title - The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall. It doesn't sound as if they are married at all.

Well, I hear you, but the British Crown reigns with the consent of the people through Parliament, not the other way around. The Prime Minister exercises the royal perogative, not the Queen, and these things are subject to political will when controversial. The fact that Camilla was "the other woman" during Charles' marriage to Diana certainly falls into that category.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

She will be Queen as that is the current law. She is his spouse and both the civil marriage and religious affirmation were done legally so when Elizabeth passes on...she is the next Queen.

We having a saying in America, "You can't fight city hall."

That is the case here. Your laws are in effect unless Parliament changes them, right?

So people can mope about it, but she will be Queen...Camilla....hmm...not the most royal of names..but oh well.....

 

[love_cc]

I think, Australia and New Zealand Labour Party are calling another run for abolishing Contitutional Monarchy in their countries. For me, if people still want a monarchy, they should follow the law and order and let Charles become King after the Queen. Otherwise abolish it and set everyone free. I don't think William wants to become King if his father cannot become King before him.

And let Charles reign and let William have more time to learn from his father and have his own family life. I think one of the reasons Charles felt his childhood was miserable because Queen and the Duke were too busy on their duty and neglect Charles and Anne in their childhood. I don't want that happen againt to William's children. Charles will be a good King and his marriage with Diana was too complex to explain what's wrong. He should not blame everything.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Otherwise abolish it and set everyone free

It's not that restrictive is it?

 

[love_cc]

It's not that restrictive is it?

I felt sad for Prince Charles when he said he hoped that people can appreciate him more when he died. He just meant that. He will be much restrictive to be a King because he is probably too ambitious and too passionate to pursuit his role as serving the country and the people. He is probably driven too much by his ambition to prove himself and his sense of duty.

Even now, some people criticised him for intervening issues like NHS, education, environmental issues, religional conflicts.He is the Prince of Wales and he is supposed to stay away from these controversies. But Charles felt he had a big responsiblity for the society, the people and the future because he was born on the position. Then he uses his advantages in his money and his position to achieve what he believes valuable in 5-10 years.He is aware his controversies and the difficulties he may face but he will still pursuit what he believes in the future. He is much tougher and stoic nowadays. He may be proven ahead of our time someday.

Charles is so different from the Queen who never intervens any decisions or policies making. But Charles always pursuits the issues he interested and walks between the lines by monarch's rights:to inform, to encourge, to XXX. He pushed too hard in some people's eyes. Charles would not just walk away to play polo and skiing in all his life even he said so once. It is sad to feel he took his promise too seriously sometimes. Even he used to chose to sacrfice his love for Camilla to please his country and his family. How ironic!

Diana was right about her points in 1995 TV interview. Charles will be not a happy King because he has too many things to achieve under such restrictions but he will be a good king because he will be very dutiful as King. Diana should have not questioned Charles' fitness to be King in the 1995 interview. How sad she did to Charles and the Queen in front of the public but it reflects her real thought of not wanting Charles to be King because she will not become Queen. It was a revenge on Charles and lead to her divource finally. She paid her cost.

 

[Saragli]

Queen Camilla is not the most royal of names. It sounds like a spanish queen or latina singer. But it suits her perfectly. She will be the first commoner to become Queen Consort of England. A normal name suits that huge landmark in the monarchys history. Camilla also reflects her fiesty, sexy, active, fun personality. A Queen Camilla will be something new and refreshing.

 

[ysbel]

The first commoner Queen of England was Anne Neville, followed by Anne Boleyn, Catherine Howard, and the Queen Mother.

 

[btsnyder]

The term commoner is frequently used to refer to those not of royal blood, but in Britain, this usage is incorrect. A commoner, in British law, is someone who is neither the Sovereign nor a noble. Therefore, any member of the Royal Family who is not a peer, such as HRH Prince William of Wales or HRH The Princess Royal, is a commoner, as is any member of a peer's family, including someone with a courtesy title, such as the Earl of Arundel and Surrey (eldest son of the Duke of Norfolk) or Lady Victoria Hervey (a daughter of the 6th Marquess of Bristol).

So, it's true, the late Queen Mother, as well as the others you mentioned, were commoners, even though they were all member's of peers' families. I think many people think that Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon or Lady Diana Spencer weren't commoners, but they were, as is Duchess of Cornwall.

 

[Elspeth]

No it doesn't. Edward VIII didn't change his title of King because his father had died and had held the same title. It's exactly the same thing here. Can the title never be used again? Must no-one else ever be known as The Princess of Wales?

Monarchs should not grovel to the people, nor should they pander to public opinion - the Princess of Wales title was Diana's while she was married to Charles. Now it is Camilla's and I think it's wrong that she uses another title - The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall. It doesn't sound as if they are married at all.

I think it does make sense for Camilla not to be called Princess of Wales, given the history of how she got where she is. Public opinion isn't something the royal family should pander to, but it's also something they shouldn't be completely insensitive to either. Camilla is likely to be far more readily accepted as Queen if she didn't climb into the Princess of Wales title right away. If the people aren't ready to accept their monarch and his spouse, it's worse news for the monarch than it is for the people.

 

[branchg]

The term commoner is frequently used to refer to those not of royal blood, but in Britain, this usage is incorrect. A commoner, in British law, is someone who is neither the Sovereign nor a noble. Therefore, any member of the Royal Family who is not a peer, such as HRH Prince William of Wales or HRH The Princess Royal, is a commoner, as is any member of a peer's family, including someone with a courtesy title, such as the Earl of Arundel and Surrey (eldest son of the Duke of Norfolk) or Lady Victoria Hervey (a daughter of the 6th Marquess of Bristol).

So, it's true, the late Queen Mother, as well as the others you mentioned, were commoners, even though they were all member's of peers' families. I think many people think that Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon or Lady Diana Spencer weren't commoners, but they were, as is Duchess of Cornwall.

A commoner is someone who is not of the blood royal, regardless of whether they are Mr. Joe Smith or the Duke of Westminster. In reality, the Queen and her children and grandchildren are only half-royal. The marriage of Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark and Prince George, Duke of Kent was the last true marriage of the blood royal.

In German or Russian terms, the Queen and her descendants are considered to be morganatic.

 

[love_cc]

At least Queen Mother and Diana did have a title before their marriage. How about Camilla? Her mother was an "honourable" that's all. So I think even Camilla was not qualified for her background without mentioning her past. I don't know how close Major Bruce Shand is to royal household and he seems to be very a self-depreciating and low key person. Camilla did not stand much chance to be Charles' wife at the first place. It is really sad for them.

 

[wymanda]

A commoner is someone who is not of the blood royal, regardless of whether they are Mr. Joe Smith or the Duke of Westminster. In reality, the Queen and her children and grandchildren are only half-royal. The marriage of Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark and Prince George, Duke of Kent was the last true marriage of the blood royal.

In German or Russian terms, the Queen and her descendants are considered to be morganatic.

Given that the Marriage of Queen Mary's paternal grandparents was morganatic you are a little off the mark there. Also, Prince Phillip was HRH Prince Phillip of Greece & Denmark prior to renouncing all of his titles before marrying Princess Elizabeth. If you want to get really technical the last true "Royal" marriage was Edward & Alexandra.

 

[wymanda]

The first commoner Queen of England was Anne Neville, followed by Anne Boleyn, Catherine Howard, and the Queen Mother.

& Jane Seymour, Katharine Parr,.

 

[btsnyder]

At least Queen Mother and Diana did have a title before their marriage. How about Camilla? Her mother was an "honourable" that's all. So I think even Camilla was not qualified for her background without mentioning her past. I don't know how close Major Bruce Shand is to royal household and he seems to be very a self-depreciating and low key person. Camilla did not stand much chance to be Charles' wife at the first place. It is really sad for them.

Still, the Duchess of Cornwall is much, much more aristocratic than most crown princesses in Europe, including Crown Princess Mary, the Princess of Orange, the Princess of Asturias, and Crown Princess Mette-Marit. The only one who could remotely be called "noble" would be the Princess of Brabant.

She is also from a more aristocratic background that her brothers/sisters-in-law, Sarah, Duchess of York, the Countess of Wessex, or Cmdr. Laurance.

 

[btsnyder]

Sorry, would that be Duchess of Brabant?

 

[branchg]

She is also from a more aristocratic background that her brothers/sisters-in-law, Sarah, Duchess of York, the Countess of Wessex, or Cmdr. Laurance.

No, she doesn't. Sarah Ferguson has far more blue blood than Camilla.

 

[Skydragon]

We're not fanatics. We just want to see her in her rightful place. If she is married to our King then she is our Queen and to go against tradition to please those stuck in the past makes a complete farce out of the Monarchy. She IS the Princess of Wales and I call her that because again, thats her rightful title and I refuse to go against tradition to please the ghost of a dead ex-wife.

Well said Beatrixfan.
Diana should have lost the right to be called Princess of Wales when she divorced.

 

[corazon]

diana lost the title HRH (untill william outside king), not the princess of wales because she was the future's king mother, that was the agreement of the divorce.

 

[btsnyder]

I agree with Bea, too, but I don't think Diana should have lost the title Princess of Wales when she divorced....no one else in the Royal Family or the peerage loses it when they divorce of when their spouses die. Nor does anyone have to relinquish their spouse's surname name when they divorce. She was no longer "HRH The Princess of Wales," she was "Diana, Princess of Wales," which is totally in keeping with tradition and appropriate for someone who was still considered a member of the Royal Family, and was, after all, the mother of a future king. Even Princess Margaret was Countess of Snowdon till the day she died, even though Lord Snowdon had remarried.

I agree with the person who said that if Camilla was good enough to marry the Prince of Wales non-morganatically and assume the style HRH, she's good enough to be publically styled HRH The Princess of Wales and, in due course, Queen Consort.

 

[corazon]

sarah ferguson is the duchess of york not HRH, but she marry with another man (not Andrew) she lost the title, with diana was the same.
Was queen choise.

 

[corazon]

and yeah, for law camilla is princess of wales, so why no is named the princess of wales, I dont know, by some reason they do not allow (the royal house).

 

[btsnyder]

Sarah, too, is "Sarah, Duchess of York," Not "HRH The Duchess of York."

 

[corazon]

exactly......but if she remarry she lost the title.
Diana after the divorce the queen left all titles (too the Duchess of cornwall) but not HRH.

 

[Oppie]

This is my problem with Camilla not being Princess of Wales, I did a quick history check Joan of Kent, Anne Neville, Catherine of Aragon, Princess Caroline of Brandenburg-Ansbach, Augusta of Saxe-Gotha, Caroline of Brunswick, Princess Alexandra of Denmark, Princess Mary of Teck, were all Princesses of Wales. Joan was Princess of Wales 800 years ago I don't think it is fair to play with history like this. All of the wives got the title. Camilla should too, it never was Diana to begin with.

 

[btsnyder]

Exactly, Oppie. I think the strength of the Monarchy lies in it's continuity and it's stability. It seems that too many exceptions have been made with everything involving Diana. I think it's a slippery slope when you start making new rules and exception because of the whims of the day.

What comes to mind is the Union Jack over Buckingham Palace after the princess died. As far as I know, the Union Jack over the palace has never flown at half mast, even unon the death of a monarch. But the hysterical masses somehow determined that it should for some reason.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Re:

exactly......but if she remarry she lost the title.
Diana after the divorce the queen left all titles (too the Duchess of cornwall) but not HRH

I think you might be confusing the British way with the Danish way. When Diana divorced, she became - Diana, Princess of Wales. She was not Her Royal Highness or Her Highness. The Princess of Wales addition to her name was to show she had once been married to the Prince of Wales. Had she been alive in 2005, she would have had to return to Lady Diana Spencer because Camilla would have become HRH The Princess of Wales. But who knows, she may have been Mrs Al-Fayed by then.

She lost all titles she held. The HRH cannot be awarded posthumously so all this talk of William reinstating it when he is King is frankly, rubbish. It wont happen because it cant happen. It would mean nothing to Diana and would simply be three more letters on a tombstone. She wasn't done out of it in a cruel fashion - she divorced and so she lost it, the same as she lost her Princess of Wales title. That title should be held by Camilla now.

 

[BeatrixFan]

What comes to mind is the Union Jack over Buckingham Palace after the princess died. As far as I know, the Union Jack over the palace has never flown at half mast, even unon the death of a monarch. But the hysterical masses somehow determined that it should for some reason.

That was the Royal Standard. The Queen was in residence and so the Royal Standard was flown. But it never flies at half mast. In the end, the Queen bowed to public opinion and the Union Jack was flown at half-mast instead, even though the Queen was in residence.