The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #101  
Old 11-10-2005, 05:19 AM
Queen Mary I's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Tampa, United States
Posts: 177
MPs to decide if Camilla should have Queen title?

I have searched the threads and I apologize if this has already been posted-and if it is in the wrong thread-I'm a newbie and still learning!

it is from the Royal Archives webpage:
http://www.royalarchive.com/index.ph...=1597&Itemid=2

Camilla as Queen? 'Let the MPs decide'

I live in Florida and I don't know if the 'Daily Express' is a reliable source. Please educate me! Has anyone heard any more on this?

The article is claiming that an MP called for debate on November 7 I believe regarding Camilla's title-or future title as Queen.
__________________

__________________
  #102  
Old 11-10-2005, 06:46 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Queen Mary I,

Morals Morals Morals. Has anyone considered that Camilla might just be the injured party in it all? In love with another man she couldn't marry, her husband having an affair? On the other side, Charles in love with a woman he couldn't be with and Diana having affairs. There must have been a time when Camilla really thought she'd never be with Charles. And she loves him. And that's stronger than any social perception on marriage laws and divorces and adultery or whatever else you want to throw at them. They loved each other and they had to be together. Camilla became this hated public figure because she was the other woman. Why didn't any of Diana's lovers become hated? Camilla's got the man she loves and that to her must mean more that titles and tiaras. I'll be honest, they don't want public forgiveness. People remarry - it happens all the time, but for Charles and Camilla, it's different. They are in unique positions.
You won't change your mind of course and that's your right - but don't buy into the public myth. Look into the personalities and not the labels. Just my tuppence worth.
__________________

__________________
  #103  
Old 11-10-2005, 08:25 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Mary I
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.
Hi Queen Mary I

Welcome to the conversation. Let's get some facts straight. Charles and Camilla NEVER publically denegrated Diana. Charles made one public comment that he had become unfaithful in his marriage once the marriage was irrevocably broken. That's it - no pointing fingers, no assigning blame. At the time, the statement was criticized for hurting Diana, but Diana had already out-ed his affair with Andrew Morton's book. She knew well about the affair by then. Camilla has never publically spoken about Diana and I doubt she ever will. Most of what you hear about C&C's affair comes from Diana and being hurt like she was, she was hardly an objective observer. Diana made a conscious choice to expose the inner workings of her relationship with Charles; it was a mistake IMHO, because once she got over the hurt I don't think she would have wanted constant reminders (books, Panorama interview) of how she felt during that hurtful time.

You mention how Andrew never once spoke disparagingly of his wife. That is significant because Sarah cheated on him, yet unlike Diana if she had lived, Andrew has no Panorama interview pouring out his hurt and anger, no book he secretly collaborated on to show the world how unfaithful she really was. Andrew didn't go there so he doesn't have reminders of being hurt during that troubled time. He has far the most part recovered and maintained a good relationship with his children and the woman who cheated on him. That is the reason I think Diana shouldn't have gone the route she did.

Charles even took pains to shelter his children from his relationship to Camilla. Unlike many fathers, he didn't introduce his new love until the children were adults. In fact, in public, he showed respect to his wife.

As far as the affair itself, marriages get in trouble, the couples don't know how to fix them, and they reach out to someone outside of the marriage. Both Charles and Diana did it and for the same reasons. They couldn't figure out how to fix what had been broken and they still needed love and support. Occasionally the affairs end and the marriage gets back on track but the marriage needs a strong base to grow off of. Charles and Diana didn't have that strong base to work off of. Yes, we all would have liked a fairytale ending with Charles and Diana crowned King and Queen and riding off into the sunset but our fairytale is not worth the pain and suffering that both would have had to go through to give us that fairytale.

BTW, Elton John was one of the few true friends that Diana had in the last months in her life and he was true because he was willing to tell her things that she might not be willing to hear rather than the rest of the syncophants that just told her what she wanted to hear. True friends are loving AND honest and true friends let you know when you've gone too far. I cannot see where saying that Charles married the wrong woman is trash talking Diana. Charles and Diana were wholly unsuited for each other. That's not trash talking Diana or Charles, it makes them like all the other marriages that are entered into for the wrong reasons.
__________________
  #104  
Old 11-10-2005, 09:04 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 802
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel
Hi Queen Mary I
Welcome to the conversation. Let's get some facts straight. Charles and Camilla NEVER publically denigrated Diana...
Excellent post, well said!
__________________
  #105  
Old 11-10-2005, 12:11 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
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.
I think you've understood the situation fairly well. Some people want to see Diana's son on the throne as a way of punishing Charles for what happened to Diana and of "resurrecting" her through her son. In the desire to sideline Charles as payback for Diana's unhappiness and early death, people are suggesting things that would be seriously damaging to the monarchy in the longer term. Once you start turning the position of monarch into a popularity contest, you might as well ditch the monarchy and have an elected president.
__________________
  #106  
Old 11-10-2005, 04:21 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel
Let's get some facts straight. Charles and Camilla NEVER publically denegrated Diana. Charles made one public comment that he had become unfaithful in his marriage once the marriage was irrevocably broken. That's it .
Well pointed out Ysbel, exactly what I wanted to say!:)
__________________
  #107  
Old 11-11-2005, 09:58 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,732
Camilla can only be denied the rank of Queen by Act of Parliament. She married Charles and shares his rank, otherwise the marriage would have to be morganatic, something the Government made clear at the time was not the case.

If she insists on being Princess Consort, Parliament will have to agree via an Act of Exclusion. Otherwise, she will be crowned Queen Consort whether she likes it or not.
__________________
  #108  
Old 11-11-2005, 12:31 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
...amusing mental picture of Camilla being dragged kicking and screaming into the Abbey, tied to the chair, and having the crown jammed on her head...
__________________
  #109  
Old 11-11-2005, 01:06 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,532
LOL!

Somehow I think she would put a good fight!!

Thank you for that laugh!!

I have a feeling if she and Charles ever fought she could take him two out of three rounds.

That is a compliment to her btw. :)
__________________
  #110  
Old 11-11-2005, 01:37 PM
pollyemma's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Washington,DC, United States
Posts: 2,013
that is a very funny image. "don't make me queen, noooooo!!!!'

whether she IS queen or not doesnt matter, as long she's CALLED princess consort. i think if the court leads the way by calling her that on the website and in the court circular etc the media will follow suit in their coverage of the royal family.

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.
__________________
  #111  
Old 11-11-2005, 04:45 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Re:

Quote:
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.
__________________
  #112  
Old 11-11-2005, 05:07 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
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.
__________________
  #113  
Old 11-11-2005, 05:13 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Re:

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
  #114  
Old 11-11-2005, 05:45 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
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.
__________________
  #115  
Old 11-11-2005, 06:50 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,532
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..... :)
__________________
  #116  
Old 11-11-2005, 08:34 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 589
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.
__________________
  #117  
Old 11-11-2005, 08:36 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Quote:
Otherwise abolish it and set everyone free
It's not that restrictive is it?
__________________
  #118  
Old 11-11-2005, 10:12 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 589
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
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.
__________________
  #119  
Old 11-11-2005, 10:52 PM
Princejohnny25's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: , Antarctica
Posts: 2,033
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.
__________________
  #120  
Old 11-11-2005, 11:21 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
The first commoner Queen of England was Anne Neville, followed by Anne Boleyn, Catherine Howard, and the Queen Mother.
__________________

__________________
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
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events duchess of cambridge fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia 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 ottoman palace pom pregnancy president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit wedding william winter olympics 2014



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

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]