The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #361  
Old 10-01-2005, 04:26 PM
Princejohnny25's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: , Antarctica
Posts: 2,033
It would not affect Camilla at all. The Church follows the law of Parliament in civic matters. Charles and Camilla are legally married in the eyes of the state and it is the state that procliams them King and Queen. Coronations are contemplery and like a church blessing. The church recognizes that the state has proclaimed her Queen Consort and will crown her so. There is no problem with the church at all as the Archbishop has repeaditly said. Camilla is respectable for the charity work she has done, giving up a leisurly life for the trappings of royalty, giving up the rest of her life to serve the nation, and keeping quiet throughout everything. It takes two to have an affair. Camilla and Charles continued their relationship because it is the only true love they have ever had. Think about your spouse or someone you love completly with all your heart. Could you just give them up in one day because of some backword protocal rules. You cant turn love on and off. You take it where you can find it because trust me this world needs a little more love. The only reasones I have read are that she is not Diana, not elegant and gorgeous, and fell in love with the wrong man. It is not Camillas fault the marriage fell apart. She was not the destructive third in the marriage. The marriage was doomed from the start. People have only gotten to start to know who Camilla is. All other past judgments are taken from Diana. We dont know much about Camilla but from what we have seen so far she is very nice and affable. You should either like her or not care for her. There is no reason to dislike her. Camilla has no constitutional role and if you want to rid the monarchy you should do it by judging Charles. Most republic presidents are symbolic too. The only difference is that the monarchy is more ceremonious and fun.
For all the Camilla dislikers on this board not many are posting valid reasons for disliking her. I highly respect Queen Margareth too. I was just saying Camilla might become like her personality wise. The easy going, down to earth Duchess and Queen Consort. Not the stuffy, no emotion typical british royal.
__________________

  #362  
Old 10-01-2005, 08:05 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mapple
This is true, but, as far as I know, Charles and Camilla are not considered validly married in the eyes of the Church of England. This fact may interfere with Camilla being crowned as a Queen...
The fact that the church provided a service of prayer and dedication after the civil ceremony has made it a bit hard for the Archbishop to turn round and refuse to crown her as Queen, especially after he seemed to support the marriage. If the church is going to start getting rigid about who it does and doesn't crown, Charles would be in as much danger as Camilla of falling short of its standards after having broken his marriage vows, which were made in church in front of another archbishop. A person who breaks one lot of vows is not giving us a lot of confidence that he'd uphold another lot; Camilla isn't the only one who broke marriage vows.
__________________

  #363  
Old 10-01-2005, 08:26 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Margrethe II
And you said I complained. No, I just aired my own personal view (that I did not enforce upon any other member), which is something I see you also have no hesitation in doing (whether an administrator or not).
OK, so you aired your personal view that you would be supporting a Republic in Australia if she became Queen after the misinformation about her title. Whatever. I don't think any of us know where this misinformation originated; it was put out by Clarence House, and it's also on the royal family website, so it appears to be the story everybody was supposed to be adhering to, but I don't think any of us know for sure whether it originated in the Prince's household or not.

Quote:
Are you saying that its ok for His Royal Highnesses Household to mislead the public, whether coming directly from the Prince or not?
For all any of us know, this directive came from the Queen's household or lawyer and the Prince of Wales's household was just sticking to the agreed story. The royal household has made a consistent practice of deceiving the public about the royal family for years; it seems to be their standard operating practice. I don't see any reason to be more outraged by this example than by others. People who have even a basic understanding of the situation would have known that as long as morganatic marriage doesn't exist in British law (which was one of the reasons why Edward VIII was got rid of), Camilla would be Queen when Charles became King. The present Queen certainly knew the reality of the situation but agreed to the marriage anyway and also agreed to the misinformation (or it wouldn't be on the royal.gov website). I see no reason to blame this entire situation on Charles's staff. The Queen's staff were bound to have had some major input.
  #364  
Old 10-01-2005, 08:40 PM
Margrethe II's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 917
If you're inclined to say that your approach has been civilised, I think you to be rather mislead Princejonnhy25. But what does one expect...And to say that changing governments because of one person, is rather cheap when retorted by an American citizen (no offence intended to any other Amrican member).

Its also nice to see that there are those who dont have an agenda on this board.

Thankyou for your reply's Elspeth & ysbel :)

Sincere thanks to tiaraprin, Mapple & Idriel for your participation

I can see I have put a few noses out of joint, and if I have indeed offended I apologise.

best to you all,

"MII"
  #365  
Old 10-01-2005, 08:56 PM
Princejohnny25's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: , Antarctica
Posts: 2,033
No one was offended simply intrigued and asking for answers. I dont really understand your remark to americans though. This is civilized. It has not gone nasty. We are posting each others views. I have posted my views and backed them up and I just want a more reasons from others. I dont have an agenda, I post on other royal threads too. I would just like for people to open their eyes, be more accepting and to stop making life so hard.
  #366  
Old 10-01-2005, 09:14 PM
Margrethe II's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 917
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princejonnhy25
No one was offended simply intrigued and asking for answers. I dont really understand your remark to americans though. This is civilized. It has not gone nasty. We are posting each others views. I have posted my views and backed them up and I just want a more reasons from others. I dont have an agenda, I post on other royal threads too. I would just like for people to open their eyes, be more accepting and to stop making life so hard.
Like another poster made clear, I gave my reasons and I am not one to repeat myself. It isnt the best way to go about requesting soemone elses views in such a forcefull manner. And unfortunately, that was the approach you took (or how I percieved it anyway). You wont always have people who you agree with, and who agree with you. I am not making life hard for anyone, and if this has made your life difficult in any way, shape or form, it does say alot for you as a person (said in the kindest possible way). You expect me to approach your views with "open eyes" and yet you are not willing to budge and see it from anothers angle. Kind of hypochritical.

Anywho, I shall not be joining discussion as (for other reasons) I regreat to say that I am unable to focus attention on this forum whilst pursuing major commitments.

My sincere best to you all :) and I hope that a little more understanding and respect of indaviduals opinions can be adopted in future issues.

Have a great day/night everyone.

"MII"
  #367  
Old 10-01-2005, 09:29 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mapple
This is true, but, as far as I know, Charles and Camilla are not considered validly married in the eyes of the Church of England. This fact may interfere with Camilla being crowned as a Queen...
Why would Charles and Camilla not be considered married in the eyes of the Church if the Archbishop of Canterbury provided a spiritual blessing during their wedding ceremony? That doesn't make any sense, does it?
  #368  
Old 10-01-2005, 09:37 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
No one has mislead anyone regarding Camilla' status once married. The issues were all exhaustively covered by the press in the weeks before their marriage. It was made clear the marriage would not be morganatic and Camilla would share her husband's rank as his wife. It was agreed Camilla would be styled as HRH the Duchess of Cornwall, rather than Princess of Wales, with the assent of the Queen. Legally, however, she was HRH the Princess of Wales.

The issue regarding whether Camilla would be Queen Consort was also defined at the time. Legally, she would become Queen automatically when Charles ascended the throne and the intention was she would be styled as HRH the Princess Consort instead. However, unlike the present situation, Parliament would have to pass an Act to define Camilla's rights and dignity as Princess Consort, rather than Queen, since the law is clear that the wife of the King is Queen Consort and nothing else.
  #369  
Old 10-02-2005, 03:27 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg
Why would Charles and Camilla not be considered married in the eyes of the Church if the Archbishop of Canterbury provided a spiritual blessing during their wedding ceremony? That doesn't make any sense, does it?
Ah yes, the Archbishop did. I've forgotten...
  #370  
Old 10-02-2005, 03:59 AM
Von Schlesian's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: York, United Kingdom
Posts: 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mapple
Ah yes, the Archbishop did. I've forgotten...
BY the time the question becomes a real issue (in the very distant future, I pray), the Archbishop will have changed, and perhaps too the Church's official standing on it's acceptance of the marriage.
__________________
May she defend our laws, and ever give us cause, to sing with heart and voice, God save the Queen.
  #371  
Old 10-02-2005, 08:42 AM
Idriel's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: around, France
Posts: 1,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg
No one has mislead anyone regarding Camilla' status once married. The issues were all exhaustively covered by the press in the weeks before their marriage. It was made clear the marriage would not be morganatic and Camilla would share her husband's rank as his wife.

[...]

The issue regarding whether Camilla would be Queen Consort was also defined at the time. Legally, she would become Queen automatically when Charles ascended the throne and the intention was she would be styled as HRH the Princess Consort instead.
This is wrong, and I gather you did not have access to British Newspaper and television at the time. The first information printed in Newspaper (from the Sun to the Guardian) and aired on TV (BBC and co), was that Camilla will NOT be Queen and will NOT be princess of Wales. That was exactly what was said in the official announcement of the engagement. The world known as was not mentioned for days. The issue has been debated for weeks in the media and even the government and several constitutional experts were involved in that very issue. Obviously, this was so because there were misinformation. I would advise you or other to go to the BBC website and search for Prince Charles video clips. Very informative.
__________________

  #372  
Old 10-02-2005, 11:10 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idriel
This is wrong, and I gather you did not have access to British Newspaper and television at the time. The first information printed in Newspaper (from the Sun to the Guardian) and aired on TV (BBC and co), was that Camilla will NOT be Queen and will NOT be princess of Wales. That was exactly what was said in the official announcement of the engagement. The world known as was not mentioned for days. The issue has been debated for weeks in the media and even the government and several constitutional experts were involved in that very issue. Obviously, this was so because there were misinformation. I would advise you or other to go to the BBC website and search for Prince Charles video clips. Very informative.
Yes, I know that. However, in the weeks following the announcement, all details of the legal issues were clearly stated. Members of Parliament demanded clarification from the Lord Chancellor on whether the marriage would be morganatic and debated whether legislation would need to be passed for Camilla to assume a lesser rank once Charles became King. Like everything else, there was a strong political element which needed to be aired.

The point I am trying to make is the marriage is a done deal and Camilla is his wife. In my view, either she is worthy to be Consort or she is not. If she wasn't, then she would not have been able to marry Prince Charles. Since the Government, the Queen and the Archbishop all approved the marriage, then Camilla should be Queen when the time comes.

Assuming the style of Duchess of Cornwall is prudent and sensitive to the fact Diana was the Princess of Wales (while married), but I see no reason why that farce should continue when Charles is King. She is the wife of a future King and should be Queen.
  #373  
Old 10-08-2005, 09:47 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,193
I believe that there were questions asked in parliament about Camilla's titles etc.

The question about whether or not she really was to be the Princess of Wales was answered in the affirmative - i.e. she would become the Princess of Wales BUT was not going to use that title but use the Duchess of Cornwall title instead - Charles' senior inherited title.

A few days later another question was asked about whether or not she would actually become Queen on the accession of Charles and again the answer was in the affirmative - i.e. she would actually be the Queen BUT again it was re-iterated that the INTENTION was that she would be known as the Princess Consort. The wording here is important - INTENTION does not mean that is what will happen at some time in the future but that in February 2005 that was what the ideas was to be. E.g. I intend on going to work on Monday - that doesn't mean that I will do so because other things might happen to change that situation but that is what my intention is. The only way she won't be Queen is to pass legislation but being Queen and using that title are two distinctly different things.b

If you check the Hansards you will find that these questions were asked and the government clarified the situation thus: she is the Princess of Wales but is not using the most senior title to which she is entitled and she will be Queen but intends on being the Princess Consort.
  #374  
Old 10-08-2005, 09:53 AM
Princejohnny25's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: , Antarctica
Posts: 2,033
There is a difference between ones title and how they choose to style them selves. Camilla is HRH The Princess of Wales and Countess of Chester and blah blah blah. But she chooses to style her self as The Duchess of Cornwall. In doing so she does not take over duties and ceremonys of the Princess of Wales. Like being colonel-in-cheif of the Princess of Wales regiment. Camilla will become Her Majesty The Queen Consort but if she is still on shaky grounds with the public then she will style herself HRH The Princess Consort and will not take part in any Queenly duties and ceremonies. Such as a Coronation.
  #375  
Old 10-08-2005, 03:18 PM
Idriel's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: around, France
Posts: 1,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princejonnhy25
The Queen Consort but if she is still on shaky grounds with the public then she will style herself HRH The Princess Consort and will not take part in any Queenly duties and ceremonies. Such as a Coronation.
Is the coronation a ceremony orchestrated by the Parliament (or does it has to follow a ancestral protocol)?
What I mean, can they improvise or create a precedent like they wish? Is it the Court prerogative?
Because I find strange that a woman legally Queen Consort (as long as the Parliament does not pass a motion preventing her from beeing so) can withdraw herself from the coronation of her husband.
Beside, I totally agree with Branchg that either she is good enough for the position, or she's not. If she remains in this grey zone, that will cheapen the monarchy IMO.

I'm waiting for informed answers... :)
__________________

  #376  
Old 10-08-2005, 03:38 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,387
I agree Idriel. But now that you mention it, if Charles does reign will he have a coronation? It looks like all the other monarchies have gotten rid of the coronation which is unfortunate.
  #377  
Old 10-08-2005, 08:09 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princejonnhy25
There is a difference between ones title and how they choose to style them selves. Camilla is HRH The Princess of Wales and Countess of Chester and blah blah blah. But she chooses to style her self as The Duchess of Cornwall. In doing so she does not take over duties and ceremonys of the Princess of Wales. Like being colonel-in-cheif of the Princess of Wales regiment. Camilla will become Her Majesty The Queen Consort but if she is still on shaky grounds with the public then she will style herself HRH The Princess Consort and will not take part in any Queenly duties and ceremonies. Such as a Coronation.
Camilla is styled HRH the Duchess of Cornwall with the approval of the Queen. It is not a "choice" but a warrant from the Sovereign to assume a style that differs from her legal rank and title as Princess of Wales. Similarly, her granddaughter, Louise, has the Queen's assent to assume the style of Lady Louise Windsor, which differs from her legal rank and title of HRH Princesss Louise of Wessex.

As a Royal Highness and princess of the UK, Camilla can assume any military appointment the Queen grants her as the Sovereign, in addition to other duties representing the Crown. Her style as Duchess of Cornwall, rather than Princess of Wales, doesn't mean anything with regard to possible duties.

When Charles becomes King, Camilla is automatically Queen Consort. If it is still agreed she should not be Queen, Parliament will have to pass an Act of Exclusion permitting Camilla to assume a lesser style and title with precedence after His Majesty the King. Charles would then issue letters patent creating her The Princess Consort.

Regardless of this assumption of a lesser rank, Camilla would still be a princess of the UK and have a role during the Coronation ceremony similar to Prince Philip. Being Princess Consort simply means she would not be crowned Queen when Charles is crowned King.
  #378  
Old 10-08-2005, 08:15 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idriel
Is the coronation a ceremony orchestrated by the Parliament (or does it has to follow a ancestral protocol)?
What I mean, can they improvise or create a precedent like they wish? Is it the Court prerogative?
Because I find strange that a woman legally Queen Consort (as long as the Parliament does not pass a motion preventing her from beeing so) can withdraw herself from the coronation of her husband.
Beside, I totally agree with Branchg that either she is good enough for the position, or she's not. If she remains in this grey zone, that will cheapen the monarchy IMO.

I'm waiting for informed answers... :)
Well, George IV barred his wife from his coronation and the Archbishop didn't insist that she be present, so there's precedent for making things up as you go along. However, I'll be very surprised if Queen Camilla isn't crowned alongside her husband. Anything else would raise some awkward questions about morganatic marriage and the need for the abdication of Edward VIII, which would lead to some more awkward questions about the way George VI and Queen Elizabeth treated the Windsors, and I don't suppose Charles would want his beloved granny's memory subjected to that sort of thing.
  #379  
Old 10-08-2005, 08:18 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel
I agree Idriel. But now that you mention it, if Charles does reign will he have a coronation? It looks like all the other monarchies have gotten rid of the coronation which is unfortunate.
The Coronation ceremony is an ancient one which will continue for the British monarchy. The Crown is still supreme in the UK in tradition, although in law exercised by the will of Parliament as a constitutional monarchy, and the ceremony symbolizes the eternal succession of Sovereigns, both as Head of the Church and Head of State.
  #380  
Old 10-08-2005, 08:26 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
Well, George IV barred his wife from his coronation and the Archbishop didn't insist that she be present, so there's precedent for making things up as you go along. However, I'll be very surprised if Queen Camilla isn't crowned alongside her husband. Anything else would raise some awkward questions about morganatic marriage and the need for the abdication of Edward VIII, which would lead to some more awkward questions about the way George VI and Queen Elizabeth treated the Windsors, and I don't suppose Charles would want his beloved granny's memory subjected to that sort of thing.
The interesting thing about Queen Caroline is the public was very supportive of her (probably because she had given birth to an heir, Charlotte) and she literally was banging on the front doors of the Abbey trying to get in!!

I agree it will be difficult for Parliament to swallow passing an Act of Exclusion when Charles becomes King. The precedents of 1936 will have to be consulted and debated, which certainly would be very unpleasant given the legal conclusions reached at that time. I think it is highly unlikely the Commonwealth crown countries could be persuaded by the Prime Minister to pass the Act as well.

In my opinion, Parliament has no intention of passing a law which would set a precedent for a lesser rank for the wife of the King. It would basically require approval for a morganatic marriage for a Sovereign, which undoubtedly would be a nail in the coffin for the monarchy.
__________________

Closed Thread

Tags
prince charles, prince of wales


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
Who Will Reign First / Next mktv2000 Royal Chit Chat 150 10-01-2013 02:28 PM
Will Charles Ever Reign? Part 5 Avalon The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 106 06-17-2009 09:02 AM
Will Charles Ever Reign? Part 4 Elspeth The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 286 02-07-2008 07:58 AM
Will Charles Ever Reign? Part 3 ysbel The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 406 08-16-2007 08:53 PM
Will Charles Ever Reign? Part 2 Warren The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 425 05-14-2006 02:36 PM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events danish calendar duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece hereditary grand duchess stéphanie's fashion & style ingrid alexandra kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy movies new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania casual outfit royal fashion september 2016 sheikha moza state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:18 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises