Will Charles Ever Reign? Part 5

[branchg]

Legally, she would be "Camilla Shand, Duchess of Cornwall" with divorce. Her style would be "Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall" as the former wife of a peer.

The Mountbatten-Windsor surname does not apply to descendants of The Queen and Prince Philip who were/are HRH.

[Elspeth]

Most of the current crop of crown princes and quite a few kings haven't married nobles or aristocrats, and they seem to be doing fine. It's an interesting point, though, whether the royal families will be able to sustain the public's interest in a generation or two, when the crown princes have commoner mothers, grandmothers, and great-grandmothers, and when all their cousins and most of their friends are normal people like the rest of us. Presumably their interests, their schooling, and their entire outlook won't be that different from the rest of the people in their country, and when the king isn't that different from anyone else, it might lead to some serious questions being asked about the point of the monarchy.

And yes, I know I'm off topic.

[Madame Royale]

I've thought the same, Elspeth. It will be very interesting to see what eventuates.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by branchg

Legally, she would be "Camilla Shand, Duchess of Cornwall" with divorce. Her style would be "Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall" as the former wife of a peer.

The Mountbatten-Windsor surname does not apply to descendants of The Queen and Prince Philip who were/are HRH.

I'm not sure about the who "were" - but I'm pretty sure that if you are right then she would be Camilla Windsor - you need not revert back to your maiden name on divorce.

just checked:

If you take these two declarations into account, Camilla would be Camilla Windsor, duchess of Cornwall.

from: Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain: Documents
House of Windsor (Feb 8, 1960)

At the Court at Buckingham Palace, The 8th day of February 1960.
Present, the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty in Council.
Her Majesty was this day pleased to make the following declaration:
"My Lords
Whereas on the 9th day of April 1952, I did declare in Council My Will and Pleasure that I and My children shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that My descendants, other than female descendants who marry and their descendants, shall bear the name of Windsor:
And whereas I have given further consideration to the position of those of My descendants who will enjoy neither the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness, nor the titluar dignity of Prince and for whom therefore a surname will be necessary:
And whereas I have concluded that the Declaration made by Me on the 9th day of April 1952, should be varied in its application to such persons:
Now therefore I declare My Will and Pleasure that, while I and My Children shall continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, My descendants other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess and female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Mountbatten-Windsor."

(London Gazette, issue 41948, Feb. 8, 1960, p. 1/1003. See also the Times Feb 9, 1960 p. 10E.)
Former Wives (1996)

Buckingham Palace
The Queen has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 21st August 1996, to declare that a former wife (other than a widow until she shall remarry) of a son of a Sovereign of these Realms, of a son of a son of a Sovereign and of the eldest living son of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales shall not be entitled to hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness.

(London Gazette, issue 54510, Aug 30, 1996, p. 1/11603.)

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

I'm not sure about the who "were" - but I'm pretty sure that if you are right then she would be Camilla Windsor - you need not revert back to your maiden name on divorce.

Definitely Windsor, even the ex's of princes do not have to revert to their maiden name, unless they specifically want to!

[Al_bina]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Most of the current crop of crown princes and quite a few kings haven't married nobles or aristocrats, and they seem to be doing fine. It's an interesting point, though, whether the royal families will be able to sustain the public's interest in a generation or two, when the crown princes have commoner mothers, grandmothers, and great-grandmothers, and when all their cousins and most of their friends are normal people like the rest of us. ....

It is sad, but current royal families lose the charm and special aura that used to surround the royals.

[tan_berry]

Prince Charles should reign because his mother deserves already some rest, maybe retirement, and his son is too young, he must not be burdened untimely with all those responsibilities. Rather, he must be given time to live his youth, and even make his share of trouble and mistakes, like everyone else, marry between 30 and 35, have children, etc.

I do think that heirs should work and attend world meetings on the most important problems of our time, because they are suppossed to be heads of state eventually. They should study world history.

[scooter]

Personally, I think the odds of QEII retiring are zero. Given the QEQM lived to be past 100, Charles probably has a few decades still to go as the heir.

[Harry's polo shirt]

I agree scooter. I think during his marrage to Lady Diana and the aftermath hurt the way many people view him. I remember when I was little hearing on TV the debates about him stepping aside and Prince William taking the throne instead. I think that in a few more years people will be more accepting to him being a king. Good thing his mother has good genes and is in such good health that he may have those couple more years to convince people he will be a great king.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Harry's polo shirt

I agree scooter. I think during his marrage to Lady Diana and the aftermath hurt the way many people view him. I remember when I was little hearing on TV the debates about him stepping aside and Prince William taking the throne instead.

They can debate it all they want, Charles, by birthright follows his mother in the line of succession.

[MARG]

Originally Posted by tan_berry

Prince Charles should reign because his mother deserves already some rest, maybe retirement, and his son is too young, he must not be burdened untimely with all those responsibilities.

Much as I applaud the sentiments, Charles will not reign until after his mother's death. That is just who she is. He may become Regent at a later date should his mother's health fail insomuch as she cannot carry out her duties.

Originally Posted by tan_berry

I do think that heirs should work and attend world meetings on the most important problems of our time, because they are suppossed to be heads of state eventually. They should study world history.

I am in total agreement, however Prince Charles life has been riddled with complaints that "the Royal Family should not participate in anything political". Needless to say, shoddy housing, poverty, architecture, farming, environmental concerns and even organic farming are all considered "Political"

[jcbcode99]

I have to say that I am still a little confused about where this topic has gone--Will Charles Ever Reign? seems to indicate, to me, whill Charles outlive his mother? Because, that is the only way he would not reign. I have never understood this whole "Charles stepping down so William can be King" etc.....why would Charles do that? Because some people out there don't care for Camilla? Is that the reasoning here? Because that's the only reason I'm reading about in this ongoing thread. Basically, as Skydragon said, Charles follows his mother in the line of succession--that sums it up.

[KathyMoore]

The Queen will easily live to be over 100-years-old....

However, at that time Prince Charles will be 80-years-old.
Will he be too old to be crowned the King?

[jinigirl]

Originally Posted by KathyMoore

The Queen will easily live to be over 100-years-old....

However, at that time Prince Charles will be 80-years-old.
Will he be too old to be crowned the King?

I think you could not be TOO old to be crowned!

[Al_bina]

Why not? I see no reasons that would prevent him from ascending the throne at the age of 80. Prince Charles can be crowned at any age.

[COUNTESS]

As long as he knows in which direction to walk.

[Avicenna]

As long as he can carry the crown on his head

[Roslyn]

As long as he knows who he is and what the oath means.

I think mental alertness is more important than physical strength.