The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f44/)
-   -   Will Charles Ever Reign? Part 5 (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f44/will-charles-ever-reign-part-5-a-15795.html)

Avalon 02-07-2008 07:57 AM

Will Charles Ever Reign? Part 5
 
Welcome to part 5 of the long-running thread about whether
Prince Charles will become King.

This is a contentious topic, so please be respectful of the right of other posters to express opinions different from yours, and also please take the time and trouble to give reasons to back up your own opinions.

Part 4 can be found here - Will Charles Ever Reign? Part 4

Jo of Palatine 02-07-2008 08:11 AM

To answer the last posting of the old thread:

Here's an interesting article about what nobility/aristocracy actually means in the UK. It's from Burke's guide: AN ESSAY ON THE POSITION OF THE BRITISH GENTRY PART 1

ARCHIVE - 4th EDITION (1862)

AN ESSAY ON THE POSITION OF THE BRITISH GENTRY (PART 1 OF 4).

from a time when being noble was much more important than it is today, so I think it is a better explanation than everything that is written nowadays: because if you were considered to be part of the nobility back then, of course you would be considered nobility today. While it doesn't work vice-versa:

A quote:

Within the last few centuries, the word nobility has been misapplied to signify exclusively those persons who have been raised to the peerage, and their immediate families. And the multitude of races of the ancient aristocracy which exist throughout England, without ever having been decorated with titles, together with the more remote cadets of the families of peers, have gradually lost the tradition of nobility, and, under the name of Commoners, have been confounded with those of recent origin, who in later times, have risen to wealth.

KingJosh 02-07-2008 08:59 AM

This is the 1862 deffinition, more than 100 years old, I think most people in this time think of Aristocracy as having money and Nobility as having a title. Can't you find a more recent Deffinition?

Skydragon 02-07-2008 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingJosh (Post 726947)
I think most people in this time think of Aristocracy as having money and Nobility as having a title.

Definitely not! Aristocrats have a title, that is handed down generation after generation, they may not have 'liquid assets' though!

KingJosh 02-07-2008 10:47 PM

Then what is an aristocrat's title? If someone can tell me Camilla's Title then fine.
Camilla's Former Titles (Encyclopedia of Kings and Queen's of Britain)
  • 17 July 1947 – 4 July 1973: Miss Camilla Rosemary Shand
  • 4 July 1973 – 3 March 1995: Mrs. Andrew Parker Bowles
  • 3 March 1995 – 9 April 2005: Mrs. Camilla Parker Bowles
Even her Coat of Arms shows that she is not noble.

(Encyclopedia of Arms)
However, aside from the invention of a boar supporter (reflecting her paternal arms) for the sinister side, the arms are entirely consistent with the historical heraldic arrangement for a married woman who is not herself a heraldic heiress.

From Encyclopidia Britannica:
Nobility: the quality or state of being noble in character, quality, or rank.

Her mother was the Daughter of the 3rd Baron Ashcombe but since a Baronies are not passed through the female line and her Father wasn't noble she had no title till she married His Royal Highness. And even then she uses the feminine form of Her husbands title as she is not royal in her own right.

Also from Britannica:
Aristocracy:
1 : government by the best individuals or by a small privileged class
2 a : a government in which power is vested in a minority consisting of those believed to be best qualified b : a state with such a government ( England is a Monarchy
3 : a governing body or upper class usually made up of an hereditary nobility
4 : the aggregate of those believed to be superior

1. Last i checked her conection to the royal family started with Charles Lennox, 1st Duke of Richmond an illegitimate son of Charles II which excludes him from the Royal line as only legitimate children are included.
2. Her Grandfather may have been a Baron and her mother a Duaghter of a baron but England isn't run by the The Rt. Hon. the Baron Ashcombe and his family is it? And since your status in England seems to be influenced more buy who your father was or is, she is merely more then a Major's Daughter who married the right person.

ysbel 02-07-2008 11:07 PM

In the book Albion's Seed about the first settlers of the American colonies, it talks about the collapse of the class system in Britain and how it caused a lot of migration to the Americas. I can't remember the exact number but it seems like at the beginning of the 16th century Britain had no less than 13 distinct social classes which were almost halved one hundred years later. A lot of the early American settlers came from the landed gentry that didn't have a title. They did have inherited right and privilege in a particular area (for example they would have the first right to a particular important judgeship in the area) that was above and beyond what the common folk had which was no more than the goods that were passed down from generation to generation. It was when this landed gentry class and its privileges began to disappear, that several families moved to the American colonies.

love_cc 02-07-2008 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingJosh (Post 727283)

1. Last i checked her conection to the royal family started with Charles Lennox, 1st Duke of Richmond an illegitimate son of Charles II which excludes him from the Royal line as only legitimate children are included.
2. Her Grandfather may have been a Baron and her mother a Duaghter of a baron but England isn't run by the The Rt. Hon. the Baron Ashcombe and his family is it? And since your status in England seems to be influenced more buy who your father was or is, she is merely more then a Major's Daughter who married the right person.

Camilla belongs to the landed gentry families not aristocrats families. Truly, Camilla does not have a title inherited from her father.because her father did not have one. Her father was a Major of the Army and he was -a Deputy Lieutenant of Sussex, and Vice-Lieutenant of East Sussex from 1974 until 1992.

Landed gentry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Skydragon 02-08-2008 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingJosh (Post 727283)
Then what is an aristocrat's title? If someone can tell me Camilla's Title then fine.
2. Her Grandfather may have been a Baron and her mother a Duaghter of a baron but England isn't run by the The Rt. Hon. the Baron Ashcombe and his family is it? And since your status in England seems to be influenced more buy who your father was or is, she is merely more then a Major's Daughter who married the right person.

The country is indeed 'run' by many Rt. Hon's, as that is the courtesy title given to MP's. The country is 'run' by these people and not by Kings, Queens or any aristocrat!
The Right Honourable - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Honourable - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Most Honourable - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Camilla, as has already been pointed out comes from the 'landed gentry' but is descended from aristocrats.

Camilla's title is of course - Her Royal Highness, The Princess Charles Philip Arthur George, Princess of Wales and Countess of Chester, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Carrick, Baroness of Renfrew, Lady of the Isles, Princess of Scotland. - I rather think that beats any aristocrats title, don't you? ;)

Jo of Palatine 02-08-2008 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon (Post 727377)
Camilla, as has already been pointed out comes from the 'landed gentry' but is descended from aristocrats.

Camilla's title is of course - Her Royal Highness, The Princess Charles Philip Arthur George, Princess of Wales and Countess of Chester, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Carrick, Baroness of Renfrew, Lady of the Isles, Princess of Scotland. - I rather think that beats any aristocrats title, don't you? ;)

Camilla's great-grandmother Alice Keppel was descended from two Stuart-princesses of Scotland, Charles is descended from Elizabeth Stuart, princess of Scotland, through her the electress Sophia inherited her right to the British throne.

But - and that's the important point: like in all monarchies, the souverain is the fount of honour. So it's HM's priviledge to ennoble people and that's what they are from then on. It's definately not you and me who have to decide if Camilla was noble enough to become The princess Charles, it was HM's privilege according to the Royal Marriage Act: once the souverain decides that a member of the Royal family may take a certain person as a bride or bridesgroom, this person is noble enough.

As the queen accepted Camilla as being equal to her son, I don't think we have a right to say she was not right in her decision.

KingJosh 02-08-2008 10:13 AM

Quote:

But - and that's the important point: like in all monarchies, the sovereign is the fount of honour. So it's HM's priviledge to ennoble people and that's what they are from then on. It's definately not you and me who have to decide if Camilla was noble enough to become The princess Charles, it was HM's privilege according to the Royal Marriage Act: once the souverain decides that a member of the Royal family may take a certain person as a bride or bridesgroom, this person is noble enough.

As the queen accepted Camilla as being equal to her son, I don't think we have a right to say she was not right in her decision

Right she is now Noble because of Her Majesty making her noble but it's important to remember That should she divorce His Royal Highness, which isn't likely she would lose her title and most likely be known as, Mrs. Camilla Parker-Bowles, Duchess of Cornwall, as she has her Husbands title and is not a Princess in her own right. So while she is married to HRH the Prince of Wales she is his equal. If she was so noble her whole life then why didn't His Royal Highness marry her in the first place? I could care less what Her title is now she never had a title before she married His Royal Highness.

Quote:

Camilla belongs to the landed gentry families not aristocrats families.
From Wikipedia:
In the 21st century, the term "landed gentry" is still used to some degree, as the landowning class still exists in a diminished form, but it increasingly refers more to historic than to current landed wealth or property in a family. Moreover, the respect which was once automatically given to members of this class by most British people has almost completely dissipated as its wealth, political power and social influence has declined, and other social figures have grown to take their place in the public's interest
This speaks for it self.


Quote:

The country is indeed 'run' by many Rt. Hon's, as that is the courtesy title given to MP's. The country is 'run' by these people and not by Kings, Queens or any aristocrat!
And while it is true that The Right Honorable is the Courtesy title given to Privy counsel MPs, and members of the House of Lords, Which her grandfather the 3rd Baron Ashcombe never sat in and there for never had any political power in the country, the title does not make her noble since her father was not noble.

I'm not saying that Her Majesty doesn’t have the right to raise who she wants to noble or royal status and that HRH the Duchess of Cornwall doesn’t out rank all other Aristocratic title I’m simply saying the She was never titled or noble before marriage whether or not she or her family owned land.

Jo of Palatine 02-08-2008 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingJosh (Post 727432)
Right she is now Noble because of Her Majesty making her noble but it's important to remember That should she divorce His Royal Highness, which isn't likely she would lose her title and most likely be known as, Mrs. Camilla Parker-Bowles, Duchess of Cornwall, as she has her Husbands title and is not a Princess in her own right. So while she is married to HRH the Prince of Wales she is his equal. If she was so noble her whole life then why didn't His Royal Highness marry her in the first place? I could care less what Her title is now she never had a title before she married His Royal Highness.

Apart from you, obviously noone cares if she had a title or not before she married the prince. And her name on divorcing the prince would be Camilla Mountbatten-Windsor, princess of Wales or Camilla Mountbatten-Windor, duchess of Cornwall. Why should she revert to the Mrs. Parker Bowles-style after a second divorce. Not that I think there will be a divorce.

Maybe you could write to Clarence House and simply ask the one person who knows why he did not marry her in the first place: HRH THe Prince of Wales? Please, share his answer with us.

Jo of Palatine 02-08-2008 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingJosh (Post 727432)
I'm not saying that Her Majesty doesn’t have the right to raise who she wants to noble or royal status and that HRH the Duchess of Cornwall doesn’t out rank all other Aristocratic title I’m simply saying the She was never titled or noble before marriage whether or not she or her family owned land.

Why state the obvious? But it is a fact that the former Camilla Shand has a pedigree which is recognized by the aristocracy, that she was received in the highest circles when a debutante and that her marriage to Andrew Parker Bowles (a male line descendent of the Parkers, earls of Macclesfield) was considered an equal one. The fact that in britain the aristocracy does not grant any male descendent the right to the title of his father does not make the descendants less noble than their European counterparts. As in the rest of Europe, it's the relation that counts and the acknowledgement by your social class. I doubt Camilla Shand has ever been denied this acknowledgement.

Here in Germany, a certain young woman has the legal right to call her Xenia, Duchess of Saxony, princess of Saxony - that's what her birth certificate says as she is the illegitimate daughter (father unknown) of a lady with the name of Duchess of Saxony, princess of Saxony, who was born from a morganatic marriage. Is this girl acknowledged by the Margrave of Meissen, Head of the Royal House of Saxony? I sincerely doubt it. But she can give this name by law to all her children and they can give it to all their children and so on....

KingJosh 02-08-2008 11:09 AM

Quote:

Here in Germany, a certain young woman has the legal right to call her Xenia, Duchess of Saxony, princess of Saxony - that's what her birth certificate says as she is the illegitimate daughter (father unknown) of a lady with the name of Duchess of Saxony, princess of Saxony, who was born from a morganatic marriage. Is this girl acknowledged by the Margrave of Meissen, Head of the Royal House of Saxony? I sincerely doubt it. But she can give this name by law to all her children and they can give it to all their children and so on....
Thats great that Gremany has diffrent rules on who can pass on titles but I don't think England is Germany, correct me if i'm wrong.

Quote:

Apart from you, obviously noone cares if she had a title or not before she married the prince.
And if you don't care then why argue with me on the issue.

Skydragon 02-08-2008 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingJosh (Post 727432)
..... Iím simply saying the She was never titled or noble before marriage whether or not she or her family owned land.

And so?

The question, unless I got lost in the threads is 'Will Charles Ever Reign', not 'is his wife of noble birth' (which her peers say believe she is). Every title started with an ordinary person 'enobled' by the monarch or through marriage.

HM's maternal grandmother and gt. grandmother were not aristocrats.

KingJosh 02-08-2008 11:42 AM

I'm just trying to support an opinion i stated in the #4 thread that is apperently a touchy subject with Camilla fans I didn't think it would end up being a big huge discussion.

Jo of Palatine 02-08-2008 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingJosh (Post 727449)
Thats great that Gremany has diffrent rules on who can pass on titles but I don't think England is Germany, correct me if i'm wrong.



And if you don't care then why argue with me on the issue.

Because I hadn't so far realised that you apparently are not here to discuss in a friendly and politely way with others and to get a bit more information or even knowledge of how things are some place else.

KingJosh 02-08-2008 01:45 PM

I'm Sorry if I came off as being rude or uninterested in the rules of other countries, what i was trying to say was that I don't see how the rules of another country have anyhing to do with England. I wouldn't join a Forum like this if I didn't want to learn.

Quote:

I'm just trying to support an opinion (right or wrong) i stated in the #4 thread that is apperently a touchy subject with Camilla fans I didn't think it would end up being a big huge discussion.
We've all made good logical points and now maybe we can get back on subject

Skydragon 02-08-2008 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingJosh (Post 727468)
I'm just trying to support an opinion i stated in the #4 thread that is apperently a touchy subject with Camilla fans I didn't think it would end up being a big huge discussion.

Quote:

POST 284 BY KingJosh - PREVIOUS THREAD. - I don't think that HRH the Prince of Wales should be allowed to reign. He doesn't know how to play the game, You marry for the good of the monarchy and not for yourself. He should not be allowed to reign since he married out of nobility.
But you haven't 'supported' your opinion. Even some of HM's ancestors were not aristocrats, but simply landed gentry. Therefore I am unable to work out why you believe he should not be allowed to be King.

Jo of Palatine 02-08-2008 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon (Post 727545)
But you haven't 'supported' your opinion. Even some of HM's ancestors were not aristocrats, but simply landed gentry. Therefore I am unable to work out why you believe he should not be allowed to be King.

And one should point out that as the British monarchy does not recognize foreign Royal titles once the holder becomes a British subject and does not automatically create a foreign princess to a British princess in her own right on marriage into the RF, even a foreign princess would just be HRH because of her husband's status. Yes, and if we talk about commoners - as the queen did not create her daughter a peeress in her own right, in your reading of the nobility as consisting only of people with titles in their own right and not because they are related to titled persons, The Princess Royal is actually a commoner as well who does not have a title in her own right but has just a courtesy title of HRH because she is the daughter of a souverain. ;)

love_cc 02-08-2008 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon (Post 727545)
.POST 284 BY KingJosh - PREVIOUS THREAD. - I don't think that HRH the Prince of Wales should be allowed to reign. He doesn't know how to play the game, You marry for the good of the monarchy and not for yourself. He should not be allowed to reign since he married out of nobility.

Prince Charles married in his circle and this is the key IMO. Camilla has grown up in the circle since her childhood and she seems to have deep ties with many upper class families. One of the reasons why Prince Charles was permitted to marry Camilla finally was that Camilla is a PLU -she has a more proper background that The Duchess of Windsor did. Camilla is from landed gentry families which are recognised by upper class circle.

By the way, if Prince Charles were unfit to reign because of Camilla's family background, what do you reckon about Prince William's right to reign? I seriously doubt he would marry a princess or a girl from arstocratic families.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:24 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises