The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #621  
Old 11-02-2005, 11:09 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 7
Mary Wellesley

Quote:
Originally Posted by wymanda
I think that Charles will have a short reign, like Edward VII. I do think that we will see William as a very active Prince of Wales during that time.
I look forward to a long and golden reign for King William V, a fresh start and a clean slate for the monarchy after so much unhappiness and pain.This little island will light up end to end on that happy day,when Diana's son and look alike comes to the throne.Diana will be vindicated also.In leaving us her boys she may be the saving of the Windsors despite themselves yet.
__________________

  #622  
Old 11-02-2005, 11:19 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,476
I have taken out the ridiculous and slanderous gossip posts.

'Startling allegations' will need be backed up with evidence, or the posts deleted. Simple.

Warren
Royal Forums SuperModerator
__________________

  #623  
Old 11-02-2005, 09:29 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Australian
i have a question. When King Edward got involved with Wallis Simpson, it was seen as an outrage with the people of Britain because she was a divorcee. Camilla is a divorcee so does that mean that Charles will have to abdicate if he does become King or does that mean he can never become King? I don't see any difference between Edward - Wallis and Charls-Camilla
As others said when this question was first posted, factors may have included far less public acceptance of divorce at the time, and the alleged Nazi sympathies of Wallis (and, by extension, Edward).

Another factor may be the age of the women involved. Wallis was, at 40, still of late childbearing age. Camilla, at 58, is presumably beyond childbearing years unless she takes advantage of certain modern technologies--but even if she did the children of the union would be behind William and Harry in succession. A child of the Edward-Wallis union would have been heir apparent or heir presumptive.

Public attitudes have changed since 1936 but I don't know that church attitudes have changed much. The church offered a delicate solution to the Camilla situation, to remain on the sidelines during the ceremony itself and then to bless the union after it became a fait accompli through a civil wedding. This solution works because the tricky question of whether the children of the union are legitimate in the church's eyes is unlikely to come up.

This solution would not have worked in 1936 because the possibility of children--and not only children, but children definitely first in line to rule--existed with Wallis. I believe there has been speculation that Wallis--childless despite being married, albeit to different men, almost all her adult life--suffered from a congenital defect making children impossible. But I don't think anyone knew this for sure in 1936. Edward and Wallis never had children, but no one in 1936 knew for sure that is how it would play out.
  #624  
Old 11-02-2005, 10:33 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
The real problem in 1936 was the fact Wallis and Ernst Simpson had recently divorced under highly questionable circumstances. Also, unlike Charles, Edward was already King and Sovereign, which put a very tricky constitutional situation into play as to whether he was required to secure the approval of the Church and Prime Minister to marry. The opposition of Queen Mary to any possibility of marriage also played a large role.

The final nail in the coffin was when the news finally became public knowledge. It was quite clear within a week the British public was adamantly against Wallis becoming Queen Consort. Whether, with time and patience, Edward could have slowly won acceptance for Wallis as a royal consort, but not Queen, is debatable. What is clear is that the Government and Establishment had no intention of allowing the King to continue as Sovereign unless he gave up the idea of marriage.
  #625  
Old 11-03-2005, 03:29 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1
There is no chance of the throne skipping a generation and passing to William directly except in the case where the Queen outlives Charles. Such a decision would be highly irregular and, if such a decision were going to be made at all during the Queen's lifetime, it would have already been made. The fact that a clear plan is in place for Camilla to assume the title of HRH The Princess Consort when Charles accedes means that there is no plan for him to renounce his claim to the throne. For Charles to assume the throne and then abdicate because of mild unpopularity would greatly weaken the monarchy, and I do not expect it to happen.

A minor point that I don't think anyone else has mentioned is that if the throne were to 'skip a generation', William would be King and Charles would be Duke of Edinburgh, thus depriving Edward of a title that he has been promised. This is yet another reason why it won't happen.

One issue that will need to be resolved is what role Camilla will play at Charles' coronation. If she is technically Queen, even though using another title, how will the coronation be handled?

Are there any circumstances, given the current makeup of the Royal Family, where the Princess of Wales would be entitled to higher precedence than the Duchess of Cornwall? How has that been handled when Camilla has been in attendance?
  #626  
Old 11-03-2005, 09:33 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by David40
There is no chance of the throne skipping a generation and passing to William directly except in the case where the Queen outlives Charles. Such a decision would be highly irregular and, if such a decision were going to be made at all during the Queen's lifetime, it would have already been made. The fact that a clear plan is in place for Camilla to assume the title of HRH The Princess Consort when Charles accedes means that there is no plan for him to renounce his claim to the throne. For Charles to assume the throne and then abdicate because of mild unpopularity would greatly weaken the monarchy, and I do not expect it to happen.

A minor point that I don't think anyone else has mentioned is that if the throne were to 'skip a generation', William would be King and Charles would be Duke of Edinburgh, thus depriving Edward of a title that he has been promised. This is yet another reason why it won't happen.

One issue that will need to be resolved is what role Camilla will play at Charles' coronation. If she is technically Queen, even though using another title, how will the coronation be handled?

Are there any circumstances, given the current makeup of the Royal Family, where the Princess of Wales would be entitled to higher precedence than the Duchess of Cornwall? How has that been handled when Camilla has been in attendance?
Charles must be King under the Act of Settlement upon the death of his mother. It is automatic and without question. There is no chance of the throne skipping a generation unless Charles was completely incapacitated by health at the time of his succession.

The issue of Camilla's role when Charles becomes King is one that will have to be reconsidered by the Prime Minister and Parliament when the time comes. Unlike the present situation, Camilla cannot assume a style or title other than Queen Consort without legislation being passed by Parliament and the Commonwealth Crown countries affirming she will not be Queen.

The question was settled in 1936 and an Act of Exclusion would need to be passed. Then Charles as Sovereign could issue letters patent granting Camilla the style and title of Princess Consort with precedence ahead of all others princesses of the blood royal, similar to what was done in 1957 for Prince Philip.
  #627  
Old 11-05-2005, 06:59 AM
Von Schlesian's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: York, United Kingdom
Posts: 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
There is no proof of any affair.

Royal Couples do not share bedrooms. The Queen's Bedroom is seperated from Prince Philip's by her dressing room and his dressing room. Prince Philip wasn't there when Michael Fagan broke in and whether he was or not, the Queen dealt with it very well on her own.
On the night of the intrusion to Buckingham Palace, HRH The Prince Philip had been attending engagements elsewhere, and due to the distance, was staying away from the palace. Her Majesty and His Royal Highness share a bedroom, as any other married couple. The seperate rooms are more in accordance with assisting HM and HRH's personal staff (which aren't the same).
__________________
May she defend our laws, and ever give us cause, to sing with heart and voice, God save the Queen.
  #628  
Old 11-05-2005, 10:29 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by David40
There is no chance of the throne skipping a generation and passing to William directly except in the case where the Queen outlives Charles.
Are there any circumstances, given the current makeup of the Royal Family, where the Princess of Wales would be entitled to higher precedence than the Duchess of Cornwall? How has that been handled when Camilla has been in attendance?
Technically Camilla is the Princess of Wales, so I don't really understand the question.:)
If after the coronation, Charles makes William the Prince of Wales, William's wife (as Princess of Wales) would not take precedence over Camilla, as the Queen consort.
You also asked about the difference between Wallis and Camilla, from what I have read in history books over the years, 2 of the problems not already mentioned here were that Wallis was:-
1. Twice divorced
2. She was an American.
According to my grand-mother, these things really mattered way back when.
  #629  
Old 11-05-2005, 10:55 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg
Diana used to call the Royal Family "those Germans" on a bad day.....LOL. A true English aristocrat I guess! Princess Marina used to call the Queen Mother and Princess Alice, "those common little Scottish girls". In Marina's world, the Queen was only half-royal.
As I understand, Diana was not a true English Aristocrat, she had American and Scottish blood lines.
Beatrixfan is quite right when she says a very small amount of scots want to be separated from the United Kingdom.
  #630  
Old 11-05-2005, 08:27 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: los angeles, United States
Posts: 52
i find it hard to reconcile the private person from the public figure sometimes. although we all have the right to choose whe we love and want to marry- as the figurehead of a nation the people are entitled to some input as to who will represent them. So I think it was justified for the people to protest Wallis or today Camilla. I also think King Edward was right in choosing one over the other. I think the problems begin when we think we can always have it all- which is not the case. the tragedy in that situation was that he did not think the consequences through thoroughly and suffered because of it. As much as they bemoan their status and the limitations, it would be a shock to be "common" for them. Not for a day but a lifetime as the saying goes- look at the DOW.The path the POW and DOC are on will be a long one and if she is never accepted then that is just the price they have to pay for their transgressions.
  #631  
Old 11-05-2005, 09:29 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon
Technically Camilla is the Princess of Wales, so I don't really understand the question.:)
If after the coronation, Charles makes William the Prince of Wales, William's wife (as Princess of Wales) would not take precedence over Camilla, as the Queen consort.
You also asked about the difference between Wallis and Camilla, from what I have read in history books over the years, 2 of the problems not already mentioned here were that Wallis was:-
1. Twice divorced
2. She was an American.
According to my grand-mother, these things really mattered way back when.
Camilla is legally Princess of Wales, but styled as Duchess of Cornwall. Her official precedence in the UK is second after the Queen, but fourth in family terms because she has chosen to assume a lesser rank than Princess of Wales.

Once Charles becomes King, regardless of whether Camilla becomes Queen or Princess Consort, she would be the first lady in the land as the wife of the King. Her title or style has no bearing on her precedence once Charles is Sovereign.

With regard to Wallis Simpson, there wasn't any particular objection to her being American, although it probably would not have been a first choice among the British people. The main problem was she was very recently divorced under highly questionable circumstances and had already divorced once before that. Given the ban on divorce in the Church of England at the time, the King could not possibly marry a divorcee without a conflict in principle.
  #632  
Old 11-06-2005, 03:26 AM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon
As I understand, Diana was not a true English Aristocrat, she had American and Scottish blood lines.
Beatrixfan is quite right when she says a very small amount of scots want to be separated from the United Kingdom.
As a friend of a Scotsman living in Scotland, I hear quite the reverse. There is a strong movement within Scotland to separate from England. The objection is not so much to the Royals, but to the English Prime Minister and government. Princess Anne is admired in Scotland for the charity work she does.

Also, is it so awful Diana had some American blood? Well, William and Harry have it now too. Does that make them less royal??
  #633  
Old 11-06-2005, 04:02 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
I don't think Skydragon was saying that it was awful for Diana to have some American ancestors - the post just said that she wasn't entirely English.
  #634  
Old 11-06-2005, 08:16 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiaraprin
As a friend of a Scotsman living in Scotland, I hear quite the reverse. There is a strong movement within Scotland to separate from England. The objection is not so much to the Royals, but to the English Prime Minister and government. Princess Anne is admired in Scotland for the charity work she does.
I hope for the United Kingdom to stay united, as a magnificent and unique country with rich history. Will the people of Scotland be less inclined to separatism in the future, when the Prime Minister will, in all likelihood, be a Caledonian? :) I hope so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tiaraprin
Also, is it so awful Diana had some American blood? Well, William and Harry have it now too. Does that make them less royal??
I don't think it is somehow a bad thing; Churchill had some (actually, a lot of) American blood, too.
  #635  
Old 11-06-2005, 08:24 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mapple
I don't think it is somehow a bad thing; Churchill had some (actually, a lot of) American blood, too.
The Queen Mother also had "American blood"; she shared common descent with George Washington from Colonel Augustine Warner II of Virginia, d 1681.
  #636  
Old 11-06-2005, 08:59 AM
Margrethe II's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 917
I doubt if they would actually have any "American Blood" left in them by now.lol.

Oh, and one mus'nt forget their greatly watered down Canadian blood connections either

"MII"
  #637  
Old 11-06-2005, 07:43 PM
iowabelle's Avatar
Royal Highness
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,405
Camilla and I are distant cousins, through our common French-Canadian ancestors.
  #638  
Old 11-07-2005, 07:23 AM
Von Schlesian's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: York, United Kingdom
Posts: 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by iowabelle
Camilla and I are distant cousins, through our common French-Canadian ancestors.
How proud you must be that she's married well
__________________
May she defend our laws, and ever give us cause, to sing with heart and voice, God save the Queen.
  #639  
Old 11-07-2005, 07:27 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,476
very droll!

A point to you Von Schlesian.

:)
  #640  
Old 11-07-2005, 07:33 AM
Von Schlesian's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: York, United Kingdom
Posts: 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg
Her official precedence in the UK is second after the Queen, but fourth in family terms because she has chosen to assume a lesser rank than Princess of Wales.
This statement is very unclear. In the order of precednace, HRH The Duchess of Cornwall is 4th. (1) HM The Queen (2) HRH The Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh (3) HRH The Prince of Wales (4) HRH The Duchess of Cornwall. Whether Princess of Wales, or Duchess of Cornwall (or Duchess of Rothesay for that matter), the wife of the heir is always directly after their spouse.

There is no such thing as 'first lady' in The United Kingdom, that is a convention of the United States, where it should stay please.
__________________

__________________
May she defend our laws, and ever give us cause, to sing with heart and voice, God save the Queen.
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 christening of prince alexander coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll fashion suggestions gothia cup grand duke jean greece hereditary grand duchess stéphanie's fashion & style kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy 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 12:04 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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