The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #141  
Old 11-12-2005, 01:27 PM
corazon's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: -In some dark place-, Argentina
Posts: 2,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by btsnyder
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.
You're right, but all the nations loved diana, was a nice gesture from her majesty.
About the titles, the last word has the queen. For her camilla must be called duchess. For many people is good and for another is wrong, but was queen's word.
wiliam in the future want to give back the her mother the title, is a very complicated situation for all.
__________________

__________________
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-
  #142  
Old 11-12-2005, 01:30 PM
corazon's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: -In some dark place-, Argentina
Posts: 2,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
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.
yeah, but she have all the titles, she lost the title of princess of wales when she remarry and yes, if she was alive now, should be lady diana untill william will be king,
The title of camilla was queen' s decition, not not mine, nor nobody only the queen
__________________

__________________
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-
  #143  
Old 11-12-2005, 01:33 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: San Francisco, United States
Posts: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
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.
Is this true? I've never seen any instances where this was the case. Like I said earlier, Princess Margaret remained Countess of Snowdon even after Lord Snowdon remarried. Had she lived and had not remarried, I believe Diana would have remained "Diana, Princess of Wales, while Camilla would have been "HRH The Princess of Wales."
  #144  
Old 11-12-2005, 01:38 PM
corazon's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: -In some dark place-, Argentina
Posts: 2,080
is not possible to be known exactly as would be in 2005 with diana alive.
__________________
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-
  #145  
Old 11-12-2005, 01:38 PM
selrahc4's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: , United States
Posts: 760
[quote=btsnyder]
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
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.

Is this true? I've never seen any instances where this was the case. Like I said earlier, Princess Margaret remained Countess of Snowdon even after Lord Snowdon remarried. Had she lived and had not remarried, I believe Diana would have remained "Diana, Princess of Wales, while Camilla would have been "HRH The Princess of Wales."
You are correct, btsnyder
  #146  
Old 11-12-2005, 01:42 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,859
Quote:
You're right, but all the nations loved diana, was a nice gesture from her majesty.
Did all nations love her? Let's not over-exaggerate. It wasn't a nice gesture at all - she was told to do it by her Private Secretary as he said in an interview for the Jubilee "I told HM that we really had very little choice and she said, 'We should have done it sooner and avoided the embarrasment'.

Camilla seems to have had the last word here. The Queen would be fine with letting her use the Princess title I'm sure. I think she'd prefer her too being a stickler for tradition. It was Camilla who chose to use the Duchess title.

Quote:
wiliam in the future want to give back the her mother the title, is a very complicated situation for all.
It's not so much of a complicated situation as a non-existant one. It wont happen. If he does reinstate those initials he'll be making a mockery of the Monarchy and he ceases to be my King.

Quote:
yeah, but she have all the titles, she lost the title of princess of wales when she remarry and yes, if she was alive now, should be lady diana untill william will be king
What difference would that make? If he gave her a title it would be seen as cronyism and nothing more.

Quote:
I believe Diana would have remained "Diana, Princess of Wales, while Camilla would have been "HRH The Princess of Wales."
I don't think thats quite right but I'll check. I think that the rule with Diana was much like a Dowager's title but when Charles remarried, she couldn't have used the Princess of Wales bit - it'd be an embarrassment.
__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
  #147  
Old 11-12-2005, 01:42 PM
Oppie's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 537
Diana, Princess of Wales the last part acting as a last name. I think if she remarried she would have lost it although she could go back to using Lady.
I asked the question before and it seemed that the answer was if she married John Smith should would be Lady Diana Smith.
  #148  
Old 11-12-2005, 01:49 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: San Francisco, United States
Posts: 218
Correct, if SHE remarried she would have changed her "last name." It's kind of silly to think anything her ex-husband decided to do, marry, remain single, whatever, would have any imapact of what she had to do. If she remained single forever, she would have remained "Diana, Princess of Wales" forever.

And Oppie, you're right. Lady Sarah Chatto, as well as Lady Sarah McCorquodale are two examples that come to mind.
  #149  
Old 11-12-2005, 01:50 PM
corazon's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: -In some dark place-, Argentina
Posts: 2,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
Did all nations love her? Let's not over-exaggerate.
our opinions never are going to agree, I go to the facts, Churchill was not member of the royal family and was the first person's funeral in Westminster because all the people love him. diana (legally) was not member of the crown and also she had a funeralthere, camilla cannot have the last word on her title, the only one that can is the queen.

''the Sovereign is the Fount of Honour (an ancient term, but precise) and is the ultimate judge of what honours may be bestowed and forfeited'' www.baronage.co.uk

__________________
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-
  #150  
Old 11-12-2005, 01:50 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
Camilla IS Princess of Wales. She isn't USING the title because of recent history. The royal family can't be totally blind to public opinion and hope to survive, especially in the setting of a Prime Minister who thinks the monarch is irrelevant anyway.
  #151  
Old 11-12-2005, 01:55 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
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.
No she wouldn't. At the very least she'd have been Lady Diana Mountabatten-Windsor or something. Once she's divorced from Charles, his subsequent marital status is irrelevant to her. The Queen said she'd be Diana, Princess of Wales, and that's what she's have almost certainly remained. When an aristocrat remarries, his ex-wife doesn't revert to her maiden name just because there's a new Marchioness of whatever.

Quote:
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.
It is. Since she isn't suicidally arrogant, she isn't using the title. She still has it, though.
  #152  
Old 11-12-2005, 01:55 PM
corazon's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: -In some dark place-, Argentina
Posts: 2,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
Camilla IS Princess of Wales. She isn't USING the title because of recent history. The royal family can't be totally blind to public opinion and hope to survive, especially in the setting of a Prime Minister who thinks the monarch is irrelevant anyway.
exactly, with the unick jack when diana died was the same.
__________________
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-
  #153  
Old 11-12-2005, 01:57 PM
corazon's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: -In some dark place-, Argentina
Posts: 2,080
here is all the information abut diana's titles
http://www.baronage.co.uk/diana/di-arms1.html
__________________
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-
  #154  
Old 11-12-2005, 04:15 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by love_cc
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.
Charles will make a good and fair King, he has really been made to suffer because some of the 'public' wanted him to live his life to please them.
He has been made to suffer far more in his marriage/divorce/remarriage than anyone would wish on their worst enemy.

He has been laughed at because he reflects the true feelings of ordinary people on architecture/art etc.
He believes in organic farming methods and anyone who has tried organic produce will rate it far above factory farmed stuff.
He has a lot of good ideas that people claim as theirs, years down the line.

Did you know that it took Diana 5 hours of filming to ensure that she got the 'tragic but brave' look to the documentary that she wanted, that the chair was arranged so that she could do the 'shy di look', even the extra eyeliner she used was to make her appear tragic. She said 'she knew Charles', how, they had been living separate lives for 7 years at that time and she clearly didn't know him before that. How would Diana know what Charles wanted,

Sadly people have made him suffer because he didn't live out their fantasies of a Prince and Princess's fairytale ending, but he has survived and I want him and his wife Camilla as my next King and Queen.:)

It is something he has wanted, waited and trained for all his life and with the woman he loves by his side, then everything is possible!:)
  #155  
Old 11-12-2005, 07:30 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
Both Diana and Sarah lost their titles with divorce because they held them only as the wives of princes of the blood royal, not in their own right. Like other divorcees of peers, their former titles became a style (like a surname) until such time they remarried.

The Queen also issued letters patent providing that any former wife of a prince of the UK would not hold the rank of Royal Highness after a divorce. Technically, Diana and Sarah both were commoners again, although in Diana's case, the Queen declared her precedence and status to be more or less equal to what she held during the marriage as the mother of a future king.
  #156  
Old 11-12-2005, 07:42 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by btsnyder
Correct, if SHE remarried she would have changed her "last name." It's kind of silly to think anything her ex-husband decided to do, marry, remain single, whatever, would have any imapact of what she had to do. If she remained single forever, she would have remained "Diana, Princess of Wales" forever.
Like all divorcees of peers, Diana retained the style "Princess of Wales" as part of her name until she remarried, regardless of whether Charles remarried. From a practical point of view, it is highly unlikely the Queen would have allowed Charles to marry Camilla while Diana was alive anyway.
  #157  
Old 11-12-2005, 08:50 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
The royal family can't be totally blind to public opinion and hope to survive, especially in the setting of a Prime Minister who thinks the monarch is irrelevant anyway.
Considering public opinion at the time, Charles was lucky Tony Blair didn't advise the Queen special legislation would be passed in Parliament providing Camilla would not share his royal rank. There was talk among the Establishment that Camilla would be granted a lifetime peerage (i.e. Countess of Truro) and that was it. In the end, there was enough public acceptance to scrape by.
  #158  
Old 11-12-2005, 09:39 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
I sincerely hope that if that had been the case, the Queen would have strongly advised Charles and Camilla not to get married. I mean, either morganatic marriage exists or it doesn't, but that would be the worst of both worlds by a long way.

Just imagine the digs by comedians and journalists along the lines that Camilla isn't good enough for all of Cornwall, she's just good enough for Truro. That would have been really damaging.
  #159  
Old 11-12-2005, 09:45 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
I sincerely hope that if that had been the case, the Queen would have strongly advised Charles and Camilla not to get married. I mean, either morganatic marriage exists or it doesn't, but that would be the worst of both worlds by a long way.

Just imagine the digs by comedians and journalists along the lines that Camilla isn't good enough for all of Cornwall, she's just good enough for Truro. That would have been really damaging.
Morganatic marriage exists when Parliament decides it exists. In the case of Wallis Simpson, it did, so unfortunately, that precedent will always be available since the Crown issued letters patent on the advice of its Ministers to deny her the rank of Royal Highness.

I agree there was no way out on the issue of Camilla. If the Government and the Queen were not prepared to allow her to marry Charles and share his rank, it would have basically forced Charles to consider renouncing his place in the line of succession for being divorced.
  #160  
Old 11-12-2005, 11:17 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg
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.
No. Prince Philip was born a royal prince and therefore their four children are wholly royal.

The marriage of Constantine and Anne Marie, Sophia and Juan Carlos were the last big marriages of blood royal outside of Great Britain.
__________________

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 1 grecka The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 641 11-07-2005 08:22 AM




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 duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll grahamm grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdulah ii 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 photo picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess eugenie eveningwear princess ingrid alexandra 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 revolution royal fashion september 2016 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 09:33 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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