The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #81  
Old 11-08-2005, 07:03 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Quote:
No it ain't. It's determined by the government. Much as Tony Blair might think he's God, I don't think things have gone that far.
True. It's my personal belief that its determined by God but I should have left that out of this discussion to avoid confusion. Thanks for pointing that out Elspeth

Quote:
I think Beatrixfan ment that it is in Gods hand that, if you do believe in God, only he can controll who is born into the Royal Family. No one but God chooses who is in the RF and who will be the future monarch. I think thats where By The Grace of God come from.
Exactly what I meant! Thanks PrinceJohnny25!
__________________

__________________
  #82  
Old 11-08-2005, 07:08 PM
corazon's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: -In some dark place-, Argentina
Posts: 2,080
in 1936 no one can think in george VI like king but happend, all can happend.
__________________

__________________
Today the world has embraced new royal Princesses in the form of Mary of Denmark and Maxima of the Netherlands. But it's questionable whether even these hugely popular, increasingly glamorous future Queens will ever capture the world's imagination in the same way as Diana.
As Mario acknowledges: "She really was a true Princess".
-www.theroyalist.net-
  #83  
Old 11-08-2005, 07:13 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Re:

What? I think you're getting confused a bit here. George VI came to be because his brother abdicated. But that didn't happen because George V said so. Edward VIII became King when George V died. It was the Government who put pressure on the King to abdicate but the situation was pretty different back then. Edward VIII was King. George VI was his brother and became King because his brother abdicated without issue. And that followed succession. Nobody elected or chose George VI - he became King because thats the law.
__________________
  #84  
Old 11-08-2005, 07:16 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Well, in this determination to try and write Charles out of history so the memory of Diana is revered, I think we're getting rather badly off topic as well as going round in circles.
__________________
  #85  
Old 11-08-2005, 07:22 PM
corazon's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: -In some dark place-, Argentina
Posts: 2,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
What? I think you're getting confused a bit here. George VI came to be because his brother abdicated. But that didn't happen because George V said so. Edward VIII became King when George V died. It was the Government who put pressure on the King to abdicate but the situation was pretty different back then. Edward VIII was King. George VI was his brother and became King because his brother abdicated without issue. And that followed succession. Nobody elected or chose George VI - he became King because thats the law.
for taht, england have a future king and no-one thinf in who his brother can be king. I just said all can happend.
__________________
Today the world has embraced new royal Princesses in the form of Mary of Denmark and Maxima of the Netherlands. But it's questionable whether even these hugely popular, increasingly glamorous future Queens will ever capture the world's imagination in the same way as Diana.
As Mario acknowledges: "She really was a true Princess".
-www.theroyalist.net-
  #86  
Old 11-08-2005, 07:23 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Let's get back on topic, please, corazon.
__________________
  #87  
Old 11-08-2005, 07:26 PM
corazon's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: -In some dark place-, Argentina
Posts: 2,080
OK, Elspeth
__________________
Today the world has embraced new royal Princesses in the form of Mary of Denmark and Maxima of the Netherlands. But it's questionable whether even these hugely popular, increasingly glamorous future Queens will ever capture the world's imagination in the same way as Diana.
As Mario acknowledges: "She really was a true Princess".
-www.theroyalist.net-
  #88  
Old 11-09-2005, 01:26 AM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
Didn't they? They're still here aren't they? I think that if she abdicated, Charles could go to his mother for advice - if she's in the family mausoleum, what help can she give him?
They barely survived and that is because of HM the Queen Mother and the two charming princesses as daughters. Also having HM Queen Mary's backing was a help. However, it was a close call and Her Majesty still has horrible memories of that time I think and she just cannot or will not abdicate. For her it goes against everything she has been taught in life. She believes in duty, honor, and keeping a promise she made at the age of 21 in South Africa. Her Majesty will not let her subjects down. She should be applauded for all she has done. She has made some mistakes such as in raising her children, but all in all, Her Majesty is a model monarch.
__________________
  #89  
Old 11-09-2005, 01:30 AM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by corazon
the law is the law, I agree, but the queen is the unique person who can ask charles who abdicates if she considers that is the best thing for the crown or no. For that reason I say thatis into the hands of the queen, no us.
As much as I would not like to see Charles King, he is the next in line and Her Majesty cannot change it nor the government unless something quite horrific happened. Her Majesty feels one is born into this position by an act of God, and no earthly hand may change that unless there is something catastrophic.
This is a modified version of the "Divine Right of Kings".
__________________
  #90  
Old 11-09-2005, 01:33 AM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
Camilla is non-negotiable. Always has been and always will be. And thank God for it.
Not everyone is thanking God for it.
__________________
  #91  
Old 11-09-2005, 07:29 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
I have to disagree there. People in the 30s were a bit more repressed than we are now. My Grandmother told me that at the time of the Abdication, she was a little girl and when she mentioned it to her mother, her mother said, "That's not for us to talk about". There was very much a sense of 'knowing your place' which has really broken down alot now and so we're more willing to question. But they didn't then. The Monarchy survived because it was still revered as the highest authority in the land and people believed that the King was on a par with the divine. It has nothing to do with the Queen, Queen Mary or anything like that. They helped to sort out the Government and the few royal watchers who staged their protests against the abdication but as for the general joe (the majority of the country at that time) people didn't question and that was that.
Whether the Queen is a good monarch or not doesn't come into it. I think we're over-reacting to the general opinion on the abdication at the time and all we have to go on are the accounts of the people who were there. Speaking to them, I've long since realised it wasn't the great hoo-hah the historians make out. It may have rocked the House of Windsor but it didn't rock England.
__________________
  #92  
Old 11-09-2005, 09:45 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by corazon
I have a question that nobody could answer to me, as would be the official position of charles if he abdicates to the throne and william is king? THIS IS HYPOTHESIS will continue being prince of wales? , because the king's eldest son is prince of wales for tath the william's son must be prince of wales. Somebody know?
Charles will be prince of the united kingdow? or he will be like EDWARD VIII?
Charles could only abdicate once he was King, therefore, his previous titles and dignities would have merged with the Crown. The Dukedom of Cornwall would automatically pass to William as the Sovereign's eldest son and heir to the throne. If William had a son, then he would become the new Duke of Cornwall when William became King. William's son would then be created the new Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester as the new heir to the throne.

Upon abdication, Charles would automatically assume his birthright title and rank of HRH Prince Charles. William V could choose to grant him additional titles and dignities, just as Edward VIII became the Duke of Windsor via letters patent issued by George VI.
__________________
  #93  
Old 11-09-2005, 09:54 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by corazon
ok, he lost the title and will be william's decision another title.
...interesting and complicated situation
...
It would be just like what happened in 1936 with Edward VIII. When he abdicated, he was automatically HRH Prince Edward again as a son of the sovereign under George V's letters patent of 1917. George VI then created his brother HRH the Duke of Windsor with precedence before the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester, but after Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret.
__________________
  #94  
Old 11-09-2005, 12:42 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiaraprin
As much as I would not like to see Charles King, ".
Why not?
__________________
  #95  
Old 11-09-2005, 12:47 PM
corazon's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: -In some dark place-, Argentina
Posts: 2,080
This article is IN ROYAL ARCHIVE, remember I dont day this.
Camilla as Queen? 'Let the MPs decide'
http://www.royalarchive.com/index.ph...=1597&Itemid=2

In this case is the last I do.
__________________
Today the world has embraced new royal Princesses in the form of Mary of Denmark and Maxima of the Netherlands. But it's questionable whether even these hugely popular, increasingly glamorous future Queens will ever capture the world's imagination in the same way as Diana.
As Mario acknowledges: "She really was a true Princess".
-www.theroyalist.net-
  #96  
Old 11-09-2005, 12:50 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Quote:
Why not?
Because Skydragon, Diana is dead and therefore everyone must suffer, the whole natural order of things has to come crashing down and traditions that have been with the Monarchy since its creation have to be changed so that a late ex-wife of a future King can be honoured forever.
__________________
  #97  
Old 11-09-2005, 01:59 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
Because Skydragon, Diana is dead and therefore everyone must suffer, the whole natural order of things has to come crashing down and traditions that have been with the Monarchy since its creation have to be changed so that a late ex-wife of a future King can be honoured forever.
Thats what I find hard to understand, she was his ex wife (both having commited adultery) and she died 8 years ago.:)
__________________
  #98  
Old 11-10-2005, 01:12 AM
Queen Mary I's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Tampa, United States
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel
For Charles and Camilla to carry on their relationship with her in no official capacity was having it all and quite rightly the Queen did not allow that situation. Actually the price Camilla paid for Charles' love is that she had to marry him and face greater public scrutiny than if she had been in the background without any royal restrictions. Now their relationship and conduct is subject to public scrutiny. From the looks of things now though, I cannot say that she never will be accepted.

The success of the monarchy has to be considered. Passing over Charles carries inherent risks. Would it set another precedent for a king being passed over?

Edward VIII abdicated which is not the same thing and we have learned that while King, he leaked highly sensitive political information during the difficult pre-WWII days from Privy Council meeting to Wallis and his friends which was repeated in open conversation. In doing so, he violated the sacred trust between King and government in very dangerous times and they could not be assured that he would not continue to pose the same risk going forward. That was a wholly different situation. It was the right decision but it still rocked the British monarchy for years to come. Abdication is a move not to be taken lightly.
What troubles me personally is the position of the Monarch as the figurative head of a Christian church-and he commited adultery. I believe Charles should have shown the mother of his children more respect even if their marriage wasn't working out-I look to his brother the Duke Of York. Never once has he publicly denegrated the mother of his children. At one point I think Charles said he never loved Diana. What a thing for his children to get wind of. And Camilla should have shown Diana respect for her marriage. I cannot get past the fact that she did all she could to stay in Charles's life. From before the honeymoon on. I was brought up a street kid in Philadelphia, PA. Diana was brought up more ladylike. If some woman had given my bridegroom 'keepsake' cufflinks with their pet initials I would have re-arranged her face. And then his. Then I would have sought an annulment for his deception. But Diana was not a street kid of the world. She had a more sheltered upbringing and handled herself as best she knew how. She was no saint mind you. But she seemed to react to the cold indifference her husband, and his mistress showed to her feelings.

I am sorry. I can never ever respect Camilla. She in her late Majesties the Queen Mother's jewelry, and HM Queen Mary's tiara does not a Duchess or Princess make. To me she is no more than a [edited...]. I do wish Charles and her well. But they should not complain every time someone hoists a sign like 'Camilla your no Princess Di' and 'Not fit to be king'. They let alot of us down.I am trying to find it in my heart to forgive though. They looked so happy on their civil wedding day as much as I did not want to think positive as I watched on tv. But on the other hand I think the Archbishop and others in the church seemed to put their imprimator on an adulterous union that caused so much pain for many-and the most heartbroken of all is dead. Never an absolution there.

btw I think Elton John should have kept his opinion to himself about Charles marrying 'the wrong woman'. Some friend to Diana. Even if true he should not have said so. I am sure Diana's children can not like hearing about their father's friends trash-talking their mother.
__________________
  #99  
Old 11-10-2005, 03:21 AM
Margrethe II's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 917
Hit the deck....

"MII"
__________________
  #100  
Old 11-10-2005, 04:51 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: xx, United States
Posts: 17
Firstly, I'm an American, so excuse me if there's something obvious that I'm missing out on here...

It's only that I've never really understood the basis for the calls for Queen Elizabeth to "retire" and for Charles to be removed (were that possible) from the succession. It seems as though in the end, objections basically boil down to issues of people disliking Charles, preferring William, etc. But the monarchy isn't a popularity contest, is it? It's an ancient tradition, with clearly defined rules for how it should function. I can see how people would be upset by unfaithfulness in marriage, but I suppose a somewhat grim argument could be made for that being a tradition in and of itself.

If the arguments come down to moral scruples, then that would seem to reflect a changing idea about the role of the monarchy - that they should be responsive to public opinion and answerable to public judgement in much the same way that our elected officals are here in the US. If you're not liked, if you don't do what we think you ought, then you're out. And setting the monarchy up so that "voting people out" were possible would require a major overhaul of the whole institution, and indeed, a total refiguring of its purpose - for it wouldn't truly be a monarchy anymore in strict terms if one's understanding of monarchy includes ideas like divine right, etc. Admittedly, those sorts of concepts seem a bit dubious to us today, but those are the strict historical definitions as I understand them.

I'm not necessarily saying that making changes in that direction would be bad, but it does get somewhat confusing when people discuss the issue in terms of historical precedents when in fact, to me, the whole business seems distinctly contemporary.

Maybe someone can help set me straight.
__________________

__________________
It is what you read when you don't have to that determines what you will be when you can't help it - Oscar Wilde
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
Charles and Camilla Current Events 4: Oct - Nov 2005 Elspeth Current Events Archive 248 11-18-2005 02:47 PM
Will Charles Ever Reign? grecka The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 641 11-07-2005 08:22 AM
Charles and Camilla: Current events 2: Sept - Oct 2005 Elspeth Current Events Archive 199 10-04-2005 04:45 AM
Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles 6: Feb - April 2005 Alexandria Current Events Archive 183 04-09-2005 07:54 PM
Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles 5: Nov 2004 - Feb 2005 Elspeth Current Events Archive 188 02-27-2005 09:48 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch royal history engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern 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 olympic games olympics ottoman picture of the month poland pom president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess madeleine princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion princess of asturias queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:49 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]