The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #161  
Old 11-13-2005, 12:07 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade
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.

I suppose the argument about the Queen and her children could apply due to the fact that the Queen Mum wasn't born royal meaning that her children, i.e. the Queen and Princess Margaret aren't completely royal and therefore their children aren't either.
__________________

  #162  
Old 11-13-2005, 12:54 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade
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.
Yes, in reality, not in technicality. Prince Philip gave up his Greek title to become a British citizen as Lt. Philip Mountbatten. But, as far as dynastic concerns, his blood is most royal of all.

The marriages entered into by all the Crown Princes today would have been considered morganatic at one time. Sweden only changes its laws requiring equal marriages for royals in the 70s before Carl Gustaf married Sylvia.
__________________

  #163  
Old 11-13-2005, 02:05 AM
Queen Mary I's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Tampa, United States
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
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.
From all I have been able to gather over the years Camilla made certain she would stay visible in Charle's life. As a newlywed I would have been deeply offended, and very upset if I discovered my Bridegroom was wearing cufflinks with pet initials given to him by his 'former' lover.

It seems to me that the people who condone adultery have no problem with Charles and Camilla's extramarital affair. I believe Diana would not have embarked on affairs if her husband had been faithful to her-at least until the divorce. But she is dead, a major hurdle out of Charle's way and now the mistress will be Queen. I for one will not rejoice if that sad day should come to pass. I will take solace in the fact that Charles is pushing 60, the Queen seems in excellent health and his reign if it happens will be brief.
__________________
Happy New Year-Here's to Peace On Earth
  #164  
Old 11-13-2005, 02:24 AM
Queen Mary I's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Tampa, United States
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel
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.
Diana 'allegedly' called Camilla a Rottweiler, and Camilla 'allegedly' called Diana 'that ridiculous woman'. Like most of us I go by the articles, and interviews with 'friends' and 'courtiers' who speak to the press but are too cowardly to allow their names to be used. I believe there is more truth in the 'gossip' over the years.

You seem to put the blame on Diana for all that transpired. And the poor dead Princess isn't here to defend herself against Camilla and Charle's friends who continue to trash her.

I must agree to disagree with you and then I will end it right here. I say that two worldly wise lovers conspired to stay together even if both were married. And the teenaged Diana believed whatever the experienced 31 year old Charles said when he was courting her. He is not an evil man. But I believe he used her because he needed a broodmare. I will always believe that.

To go back to the subject none if this changes the succession. I only wish that it would because of my personal beliefs.

And I don't believe btw that the monarchy would be damaged if the succession were changed. On the contrary-I believe 'all the people would rejoice' at the news that William not Charles would be their next king. The monarchy has survived nearly one thousand years and it will still be alive and kicking for a thousand more.

And I must disagree with whomever wrote in an earlier thread that 'the U.S. has accepted' Camilla. If you are going by the people who bothered to go see them on tour then you are right. If you go by the men and women on the streets who were polled-some of who didn't even know the Prince and Camilla were visiting-well I won't even go there. It wasn't pretty.

It just speaks volumes that Clarence House would be so afraid of the Ghost Of Diana that they would even go through the bother of this 'Duchess Of Cornwall' and 'Princess Consort' nonsense. Why though? Because poll after poll from various news groups EVEN NOW after their tour if you even believe in such things show that the majority of people are overwhelmingly against a Queen Camilla. They don't mind the marriage and neither do I.

And as for Elton John I would not want any friend of mine saying to the press that my father had married the wrong woman. That is a hurtful remark-it was uncalled for even if it is true. And I am willing to bet the bank Elton would never have said so while Diana was alive. I cannot imagine either of Diana's sons feeling pleased if they heard it. It is like 'don't talk about MY momma! If you don't want me to talk about YOURS'! That's just imo.
__________________
Happy New Year-Here's to Peace On Earth
  #165  
Old 11-13-2005, 04:13 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,387
Queen Mary I,

Where did I put all the blame on Diana? This really bugs me, with some people when we suggest that Charles doesn't bear all the blame for breaking Diana's heart we get accused of Diana-bashing or blaming her. We are not bashing Diana although it seems that the only way some people think to truly honor Diana's memory is to bash C&C and blame them for anything regardless of whether its substiated or not. I'm sorry but if that's the real lasting legacy of Diana its a poor legacy at best.

I've been close to a marriage that broke up like this and I know there is a certain point at which blame becomes irrelevant. But its obvious though now that we see Camilla, the wife Charles is apparently happy with now and we see she's nothing like Diana so it becomes obvious that Charles and Diana were not compatible at all. It should be self-evident that you can't blame people for being incompatible.

I think that is why Elton John along with others are now saying that Charles married the wrong woman. I don't know whether William or Harry would be insulted by his statement, it doesn't make Diana a bad person and it doesn't put blame on her for the marriage. The boys were close enough to the marriage to see that it was not working and they know more than the rest of us.
  #166  
Old 11-13-2005, 08:32 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,476
I know it's hard to separate the "relationship" factor from the topic of this thread, but discussions about Diana/Charles/Camilla should be more appropriately posted in the "Diana/Charles/Camilla Relationships" thread. Otherwise we have two threads more or less going over the same ground.

thanks,
Warren
British Forums Moderator
  #167  
Old 11-13-2005, 08:44 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Mary I
Like most of us I go by the articles, and interviews with 'friends' and 'courtiers' who speak to the press but are too cowardly to allow their names to be used. I believe there is more truth in the 'gossip' over the years.
Friends and courtiers 'close' to Charles and Camilla have said very little over the years.
Diana, on the other hand used her friends to release her version of events to the media. Some like Burrell, made it up as they went along. Anyone seeing him on 'gotya' programmes is able to see from his bowing, scrapeing and lying to supposed royalty, that most of what he says couldn't possibly be true.

I fail to see why as a new bride, you would expect your husband to throw out everything given him by a very good friend or former lover. You would have to be paranoid to feel threatened by your new husbands favourite pair of cufflinks. Would most of us even notice and if we did, would we not at the first opportunity buy something better. Only if he refused to wear my present would I be upset!
  #168  
Old 11-13-2005, 08:45 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren
I know it's hard to separate the "relationship" factor from the topic of this thread, but discussions about Diana/Charles/Camilla should be more appropriately posted in the "Diana/Charles/Camilla Relationships" thread. Otherwise we have two threads more or less going over the same ground.

thanks,
Warren
British Forums Moderator
Sorry Warren!!:o
  #169  
Old 11-13-2005, 12:07 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel
Yes, in reality, not in technicality. Prince Philip gave up his Greek title to become a British citizen as Lt. Philip Mountbatten. But, as far as dynastic concerns, his blood is most royal of all.

The marriages entered into by all the Crown Princes today would have been considered morganatic at one time. Sweden only changes its laws requiring equal marriages for royals in the 70s before Carl Gustaf married Sylvia.
Although it was somehow overlooked at the time, Philip was already a British citizen as a descendant of the Electress Sophia under the Act of Settlement as well as through his mother, Princess Alice.

Alice was also morganatic because her father, Prince Louis of Battenberg, was a mere Serene Highness as the son of Prince Alexander of Hesse and his morganatic wife, Julie von Haucke. Julie was very common indeed as the daughter of a Polish military attache in the Russian Army.

Philip is arguably more royal than the Queen, but not much.
  #170  
Old 11-13-2005, 12:12 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrissy57
I suppose the argument about the Queen and her children could apply due to the fact that the Queen Mum wasn't born royal meaning that her children, i.e. the Queen and Princess Margaret aren't completely royal and therefore their children aren't either.
In reality, they are not, but given the marriages between royals and commoners in the other European royal houses, the Queen and her descendants are far more royal by today's standards.
  #171  
Old 11-13-2005, 12:21 PM
Princejohnny25's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: , Antarctica
Posts: 2,033
Charles and Camilla have never bashed Diana or mention her in public. They respect her and respect the peoples opinions and that is why they went with the Duchess of Cornwall title. William and Harry would not be offended at all by what Elton John said. They probably agree with him 110%. They know that there mom and married the wrong man and charles the wrong women. They know this and accept this and have moved on. Diana had her life and a privaledged wealthy one. She died and the world has moved on. Diana and Charles started their affairs at the same time. Marriage means nothing if the people in it are miserable and lonely. Diana and Charles both were and went outside the marraige looking for comfort. Why wait till a divorce to find love and happiness when the marriage is already over but in name. That is nonsense. Elton John was a real friend in that he told Diana the truth. As for him defending Camilla, doesnt that give you a hint. First, William and Harry accept her and show it in public. They also state that they have been close to her for years and love her to bits. Then the Queen and Royal Family show their acceptence in Public. Now one of Dianas friends has defended the Duchess. It is saying that Diana moved on after the divorce and accpeted Camilla. It is saying that Diana was at Peace with charles and Camilla. It is saying that Diana would not want all this crazy "have charles step down" and damn the royal couple to hell nonsense. Diana moved on and now everyone else should too. Also, the monarchy may end tomorrow. It is on very shaky grounds and a change in the succession would mean disaster. It would open up debate in the parliment and the labour party could easily just vote to abolish the monarchy instead.
  #172  
Old 11-13-2005, 12:30 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg
In reality, they are not, but given the marriages between royals and commoners in the other European royal houses, the Queen and her descendants are far more royal by today's standards.
Yes, I think Sonja of Norway was the first queen from a totally common background. At the time, King Olav was disappointed but the general opinion was that it wouldn't be a bad thing to get some Norwegian blood in the royal household. They probably didn't predict that royal marriages with commoners would become so widespread.

Carl Gustaf's marriage to Sylvia was more controversial. He had to wait until he was King. That, I think was the waterfall event.

Now, how does this relate to will Charles ever reign? Well now Camilla's family background shouldn't be a concern and with Mette-Marit and her past in line for becoming Queen Consort of Norway, its becoming harder to justify passing over Charles.
  #173  
Old 11-13-2005, 01:41 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Well, Camilla is not going to have any children with Charles, so the issue of her background is of less importance. William and Harry certainly are of aristocratic and royal blood, so the issue is who they will eventually marry.
  #174  
Old 11-13-2005, 01:54 PM
Oppie's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 537
Quote:
Carl Gustaf's marriage to Sylvia was more controversial. He had to wait until he was King. That, I think was the waterfall event.
Not only that when Prince Betril finally married Lillian I think people began to realize that there was no point and Princes(esses) should be able to marry who they loved. What happened with Charles and Diana seemed to cement that and now we have Princesses with controversial pasts that are accepted and they are given a chance to prove themselves (which I think is the case with Mette-Merit, Letizia and Maxima)
  #175  
Old 11-13-2005, 02:11 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
And I don't believe btw that the monarchy would be damaged if the succession were changed. On the contrary-I believe 'all the people would rejoice' at the news that William not Charles would be their next king.
Speaking as one of "all the people," I hope you'll count me out of that statement. If Charles is alive and in reasonable health when the Queen dies, he should become the next monarch. Otherwise you might just as well give up the whole idea of monarchy and go with an elected president if you want to have the head of state chosen based on popularity.
  #176  
Old 11-13-2005, 02:13 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel
Yes, I think Sonja of Norway was the first queen from a totally common background. At the time, King Olav was disappointed but the general opinion was that it wouldn't be a bad thing to get some Norwegian blood in the royal household. They probably didn't predict that royal marriages with commoners would become so widespread.

Carl Gustaf's marriage to Sylvia was more controversial. He had to wait until he was King. That, I think was the waterfall event.

Now, how does this relate to will Charles ever reign? Well now Camilla's family background shouldn't be a concern and with Mette-Marit and her past in line for becoming Queen Consort of Norway, its becoming harder to justify passing over Charles.
Sonja was the first European one as far as I know, but Empress Michiko is also from a commoner background, and that would have been a much greater leap than for most of the European royals because senior Japanese royals tended to marry only other Japanese royals, not royals or aristocrats from other countries.
  #177  
Old 11-13-2005, 03:41 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Mary I
On the contrary-I believe 'all the people would rejoice' at the news that William not Charles would be their next king. .
Count me and all my friends and family out of that statement!
  #178  
Old 11-13-2005, 03:51 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,859
Quote:
On the contrary-I believe 'all the people would rejoice' at the news that William not Charles would be their next king
And count me out too! If Charles isn't my next King for any reason other than his death, the British Monarchy shall lose my allegiance totally.
__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
  #179  
Old 11-13-2005, 04:21 PM
Princejohnny25's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: , Antarctica
Posts: 2,033
Count me out too. Charles will make a great King. If william is king before him than the monarchy is in trouble. I will feel absolutly sorry for william because he would have to give up his life to the nation just because some people want his father to suffer cause his mother manipulated the world into beileving she was a saint and goddess. Diana is long gone. The circle of life goes on and charles is next in line to be king. Get over it.
  #180  
Old 11-13-2005, 04:41 PM
corazon's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: -In some dark place-, Argentina
Posts: 2,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Mary I
On the contrary-I believe 'all the people would rejoice' at the news that William not Charles would be their next king. .
I totally totally agree with you. MANY people in the world want william as king.
__________________

__________________
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-
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 belgian queen mathilde best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best holiday outfit best outfit catherine middleton style child coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge duchess of cambridge visit to canada dutch state visit e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece 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 october november 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles 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 royal fashion september 2016 silva 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 07:29 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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