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)
..... Im 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.

branchg 02-08-2008 11:39 PM

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 02-09-2008 01:28 AM

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. :hiding:

Madame Royale 02-09-2008 02:23 AM

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

Jo of Palatine 02-09-2008 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by branchg (Post 727677)
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 02-09-2008 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine (Post 727705)
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! :flowers:

Al_bina 02-09-2008 02:04 PM

Speaking off-topic ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth (Post 727685)
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 02-14-2008 06:16 PM

Yes
 
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 02-15-2008 01:53 PM

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 02-15-2008 09:52 PM

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 02-16-2008 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harry's polo shirt (Post 730164)
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 02-23-2008 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tan_berry (Post 729537)
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.
Quote:

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 02-23-2008 01:56 AM

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 09-26-2008 05:40 PM

can Prince Charles still be crowned at age 80?
 
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 09-26-2008 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KathyMoore (Post 829067)
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 09-26-2008 05:48 PM

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 09-26-2008 05:54 PM

As long as he knows in which direction to walk.

Avicenna 09-26-2008 06:30 PM

As long as he can carry the crown on his head :cool:

Roslyn 09-26-2008 07:44 PM

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

I think mental alertness is more important than physical strength.

scooter 12-28-2008 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine (Post 727445)
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.

Meow! There are quite a few of us who care about Camilla's origins, you know. Are we allowed to post, too?

kimebear 12-28-2008 02:52 AM

Let's leave the personal comments out of the threads please.

Skydragon 12-28-2008 07:13 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.

In the UK, there is no obligation, (maiden or married). So no Mrs Parker Bowles any time in the future!:rolleyes: to revert to any former name
Quote:

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.
Ahh wiki.:whistling: Deference is still shown to the Landed Gentry & Aristocrats, IMO & experience.:whistling:

jcbcode99 12-30-2008 01:55 PM

Camilla's origins really have no bearing on Charles' place in the line of succession. However, if they did, she is the granddaughter of the third Baron Ashcombe and if I recall correctly, somewhere down the line she and Charles are ninth cousins and she is also related to Charles II through an illegitimate line of some sort. However, she is married to the Prince of Wales, and as such holds his titles and styles. As I recall, Sophie comes from a less illustrious family history yet it doesn't keep her from riding in the car with Her Majesty the Queen on most family occasions. Seems origins and lineage don't particularly matter--

Marino01 01-11-2009 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by love_cc (Post 727594)
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.

Not all nobel woman are good for the monarchy.

I quite agree that William will not marry an aristocratic woman but rather a commoner.

BellaFay 01-12-2009 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marino01 (Post 878501)
Not all nobel woman are good for the monarchy.

I quite agree that William will not marry an aristocratic woman but rather a commoner.

Sorry to disappoint but Camilla did not grow up in Prince Charles's circle. She was introduced to him by a Catholic South American mutual girlfriend whom he had met at University. Camilla's grandparents on her father's side were a typist/secretary and her boss an architectural journalist who went through 3 more wives before he died. And her great-grandparents were I believe a factory worker and a cleaner. On her mother's side she is the step great-niece of the 3rd Baron Ashcombe.

It was Diana whose family had been part of royal circles since Edward VII's time - and look what a disaster that turned out as a marriage!This may be the reason why both Prince Charles and Camilla are keen to encourage Kate Middleton by inviting both her and William to stay on the Balmoral estate over New Year.

Marino01 01-22-2009 12:19 PM

I don't think I understand your post. I said not all noble woman are good for the monarchy and you just restated what I said.

Marino01 01-22-2009 12:21 PM

When Charles become King, I think the UK will find itself in a very intresting place. I think with the death of his mother we are going to see a lot of changes.

jcasey170 05-23-2009 09:20 PM

I'm confused by this entire thread. H.R.H. The Prince of Wales is heir to the thrones of the United Kingdom and etc.

When his mother dies, assuming he does not predecease her, he will assume the throne.

:seestars:Whats to discuss?

Iluvbertie 05-23-2009 10:39 PM

The fact that some people want the throne to pass directly to William, as if somehow the Queen has a say over who inherits the throne.

The fact that he is already over 60 and maybe will be seen as too old (not an issue for me as long as he is mentally competant to carry out his constitutional duties and remembering that he has a long way to go until he is the oldest to inherit the throne.)

The fact that some Diana fanatics want to punish him for marrying her in the first place and making her unhappy. Despite the fact that she also made him unhappy he is to be held totally responsible, in the minds of some people, for any unhappiness in that marriage.

Personally I think he will made a great king and I hope that he lives to be at least as old as his maternal grandmother or even older.

scooter 05-24-2009 10:14 PM

I always find it interesting that when someone dislikes Charles or Camilla it's because of 'the fact' they are 'Diana Fanatics' as opposed to not liking Charles and Camilla as a result of their behavior. Diana has been dead a long time. Why keep bringing her up?

ghost_night554 05-24-2009 10:31 PM

I definitely think Charles should reign, I think if the throne was passed to William it would be extremely hard on him and I don't think his grandmother would want him to have the same pressure she had at such a young age, I think she would want to give him some more time to prepare himself. In fact I think Charles would probably be a really good King, from what I've seen he seems to mostly care very much and is interested in alot of great things.

MARG 05-25-2009 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghost_night554 (Post 942685)
. . . . . . . . . . I think if the throne was passed to William it would be extremely hard on him and I don't think his grandmother would want him to have the same pressure she had at such a young age, I think she would want to give him some more time to prepare himself. . . . . . . .

I agree with the sentiments but there still seems to be an inference that the succession is within the Queen's Gift and of course it is not! As jcasey170 has so eloquently stated:
Quote:

Originally Posted by jcasey170 (Post 942161)
When his mother dies, assuming he does not predecease her, he will assume the throne.


jcbcode99 05-25-2009 11:46 PM

I am still a little surprised this topic is still running; it's like beating a dead horse. The only way Charles will not reign is if he dies before his mother dies--and he seems to be in good health so I doubt that happens. If you look at the facts, they are short, but sweet. Charles is the heir to throne, he will become King. I find it ridiculous that Diana, dead or alive, is even relevant to Charles' ascension to the throne. It is quite self-serving to continually discuss whether or not he should assume the throne because some think William should --- well, does William want to be King before his father? Wouldn't that make him feel odd? And, simply stated--it isn't done that way. This whole topic rests on a small number of people's "loyalty" to Diana--and while nice, it isn't relevant because we are discussing the succession.
The real topic has always been what title Camilla will take upon his ascension. I still hope for Queen because I'm worried if she is not Queen Consort she won't have access to some of the jewels--I know that there are deeper issues here, but I want to see some jewels. A secondary topic is what name Charles will go by; I like Charles II, but some have suggested the possibility of another George. Time will tell--

Madame Royale 05-26-2009 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcbcode99 (Post 943124)
The real topic has always been what title Camilla will take upon his ascension. I still hope for Queen because I'm worried if she is not Queen Consort she won't have access to some of the jewels--I know that there are deeper issues here, but I want to see some jewels.

Whether Queen or Princess Consort, she'll still be 'the' consort, jcb.

I don't see why Camilla, as the King's spouse, wouldn't be able to use any bejewelled diadem's, tiara's, collier's, necklaces, brooch's, stomachers, earrings, bracelets or pins which are otherwise reserved for the use of the wife of the British monarch.

Jewellery which is left to the Crown, can be allocated at the sovereign's discreation and I don't invision Charles prohibiting his wife from using any particular piece of jewellery (hopefully as long as it suits her and as long as it isn't heavily associated with any one person since passed...mind you, I'd quite like to see Camilla make use of the Cambridge emeralds at some stage).

Iluvbertie 05-26-2009 09:15 AM

What she won't be able to wear, if not Queen Consort, is the Consort's actual crown.

Iluvbertie 05-26-2009 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcbcode99 (Post 943124)
A secondary topic is what name Charles will go by; I like Charles II, but some have suggested the possibility of another George. Time will tell--


I too like Charles II. He is one of my favourite monarchs. I always felt sorry for him losing his father the way he did but pleased that he restored the monarchy in a relatively sensible manner.

Madame Royale 05-26-2009 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 943243)
What she won't be able to wear, if not Queen Consort, is the Consort's actual crown.

I noted that in my original response, but removed it as I thought that rather obvious...hehe.

So she wouldn't wear a crown. That's no big issue, imo. I think the State Diadem could serve as a more than suitable 'replacement' if Camilla is created Princess Consort. But that's just my opinion.

Elspeth 05-26-2009 10:27 PM

I think there may be some agitation from people who object to the Princess Consort wearing jewels left by Queen Victoria specifically to be worn by future queens, but we'll have to see if that actually happens.

Madame Royale 05-26-2009 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth (Post 943631)
I think there may be some agitation from people who object to the Princess Consort wearing jewels left by Queen Victoria specifically to be worn by future queens, but we'll have to see if that actually happens.

True. However, I think you'd be hard pressed to come across anyone, who unless they have a long standing interest in royal jewels, would even be aware that Queen Victoria specifically left jewellery to be worn by future Queen's. Where the general public is concerned, I'd imagine that most wouldn't even have a clue.

The British public aren't particularly well versed with such things as has been my experience...;)

Elspeth 05-26-2009 10:44 PM

No, but it only takes one of the Daily Mail muckrakers to read TRF and pick up on an angle like that, and then they can write an outraged piece in the paper as though they were some sort of expert on British royal history, and that'll get the base nicely riled up.

Madame Royale 05-26-2009 10:56 PM

Indeed. One shouldn't discredit the editorial matter this forum can at times persuade...

But if Camilla technically remained Queen, though was officially known as Princess Consort, then there's grounds enough to insist that HRH has every right to make use of the specified jewellery. I guess whatever formula is used regarding her title at the time, shall dictate whether or not her use of the jewellery is valid and viable. Though I don't think it would be much of an issue, myself.

jcbcode99 05-27-2009 12:27 AM

I also worry about the ramifications of some yellow journalist writing about Camilla wearing jewels only designated for a Queen Consort, but I have to say that I do like Madame Royale's summation on the subject--be it Queen or Princess, Camilla will be the Consort and I agree that the State Diadem is perfect for her to wear. But, still, there is the selfish side of me that desires to see her alongside her husband wearing the Queen Mother's (or Queen Mary's if I'm really honest) crown. The more I think about it, the more plausible it seems that Camilla will be the Queen Consort, and even crowned Consort, but will prefer to be known as the Princess Consort in a similar arrangement as we now see with the PoW title. Unfair? Yes. Practical? At the same time, yes. That way, the small minority are appeased and the jewels are seen. I assume she would be first in the order of precedence.

Madame Royale 05-27-2009 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcbcode99 (Post 943647)
I assume she would be first in the order of precedence.

Whether Queen or Princess Consort, Camilla will, as spouse, rank second to the sovereign. Absolutely.

wbenson 05-27-2009 03:23 AM

British precedence is usually split into two lists, one for men and one for women. She would be at the top of the womens' list (but still below the King, obviously). (Although splitting it is becoming increasingly outmoded due to the number of female officeholders.)

scooter 05-28-2009 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth (Post 943631)
I think there may be some agitation from people who object to the Princess Consort wearing jewels left by Queen Victoria specifically to be worn by future queens, but we'll have to see if that actually happens.

Well, Granny was extremely specific in her will about the schedule of jewels designated 'to be worn by future Queens in right of it'. Given how the BRF reveres Queen Victoria (ie the 'dont sit there, Queen Victoria last sat in that chair', etc), I would be shocked if they flagrantly flouted the will. There are so many sparkly whatevers in the vault that have not seen the light of day in 100 years....why not trot some of them out instead? Especially if one believes his statement at the time of his engagement to Camilla...'It is intended that she will be known as the Princess Consort', not Queen Camilla.

Skydragon 05-29-2009 06:39 AM

:previous: When the time comes, it is not going to matter one hoot what Victoria may or may not have put in her will. I can't say I have ever come across a rule of don't sit there because Victoria did! :whistling:

Roslyn 05-29-2009 07:25 AM

I haven't been able to find the text of Victoria's will anywhere, but I imagine that anything she said about her jewels was just an expression of her wishes as to who should wear certain things and such precatory words in a will generally have no legal force or effect.

She might have listed certain jewels as being those she considered so special for some reason that they should only be worn by future queens regnant or the wives future kings. I doubt Queen Victoria would have contemplated what might be suitable to be work by a future king's wife if that wife were not queen consort, since that concept would be unlikely to have occurred to her in her wildest dreams. Camilla is Charles' wife and, all going well, she will one day be the King's wife and consort, regardless of what she is called. She will be able to wear whatever Charles thinks she should be able to wear.

If Queen Victoria's ideas and opinions had any legal bearing on Queen Elizabeth II's children, Prince Edward would probably have been made heir apparent long ago. :lol:

MARG 05-29-2009 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roslyn (Post 944792)
If Queen Victoria's ideas and opinions had any legal bearing on Queen Elizabeth II's children, Prince Edward would probably have been made heir apparent long ago. :lol:

Point well made Roslyn. But it really does go to show that those who harbour antiquated ideas about the marriage and divorce of royalty have already got their ducks in a row. If they can't take the crown from Charles they'll make damned sure there is a fuss every time someone see's Camilla wear something they "believe" is only meant for a Queen.

Charles will reign, that is my belief. Camilla will be Queen, that is my hope. I really don't understand those that believe that the sucession is a gift to be earned. Hell Harry VIII would have been well and truely kicked out of the kingdom by the selective puritanical stance of some utterly joyless gits!

However, it is my understanding that for Camilla not to be Queen will require an act of parliament and leaving it until the Queen is already dead will create some ethical and moral dilemma's. "The Queen is dead, long live the King, but hang about, we'll have to have a special session in parliament to change the rules . . . . . . now should we fit that in before, during or after the funeral of the Queen?
Quote:

Originally Posted by scooter (Post 944716)
Well, Granny was extremely specific in her will about the schedule of jewels designated 'to be worn by future Queens in right of it'. . . . . . I would be shocked if they flagrantly flouted the will. There are so many sparkly whatevers in the vault that have not seen the light of day in 100 years....why not trot some of them out instead? Especially if one believes his statement at the time of his engagement to Camilla...'It is intended that she will be known as the Princess Consort', not Queen Camilla.

Anyone got a copy of Queen Victoria's Will so we can remove any jewellry from temptation . . . . maybe while they are all at the Funeral Service?"

Like I said . . . .:devil2::duckie::duckie::duckie: :argh:

Warren 05-29-2009 11:35 AM

I know nothing about Queen Victoria's will but the official designation is "Jewels left to the Crown". The Crown is currently represented by Elizabeth II; in due course it will be represented by Charles III. It will be he who decides who wears what.

Among the many pieces Victoria left to the Crown were three jewelled head ornaments:

The Diamond Diadem of George IV (band remounted 1902, row of pearls added 1937)
The Brilliant Regal Tiara (the diamonds remounted in 1937 for the crown of Queen Elizabeth)
Regal Indian Tiara (remounted for Queen Alexandra in 1902, opals replaced with rubies)

In short: one diadem, one crown and one tiara for those so inclined to argue over.

scooter 05-29-2009 09:11 PM

Pg 10, 'The Jewels of Queen Elizabeth' by Leslie Field..."her will contained a schedule of jewels that were to be considered as 'belonging to the Crown and to be worn by all future Queens in right of it' ".

Roslyn 05-30-2009 02:19 AM

Thanks for pointing out that reference, Scooter.:flowers:

Elspeth 05-30-2009 02:46 AM

If Camilla does become Princess Consort, it sort of depends on how it's done. If they do an end run around the current situation where a monarch (and hence spouse) can't take other titles and announce that HM Queen Camilla will be known by the fictitious title of HRH Princess Consort, then she'll still be Queen even though she isn't called Queen, so the terms of Queen Victoria's will would be complied with. However, if legislation is passed to deprive her of the title of Queen and create her Princess Consort in her own right, or however they'd do it, that would be a different situation. Even then, what if she did show up wearing the Oriental Circlet or the George IV diadem? Apart from the tabloids having a field day, what, practically, could anybody do about it?

Princess Mia 05-30-2009 04:47 AM

No, to be honest I don't think he should.

Iluvbertie 05-30-2009 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princess Mia (Post 945245)
No, to be honest I don't think he should.

Could you please explain why you think Britain should change their laws to deprive a hardworking dedicated Prince of Wales from his inheritance?

Skydragon 05-30-2009 06:36 AM

Quote:

Pg 10, 'The Jewels of Queen Elizabeth' by Leslie Field..."her will contained a schedule of jewels that were to be considered as 'belonging to the Crown and to be worn by all future Queens in right of it'
I wonder where she got her information from regarding the will, or if she details it at all.

We all know that certain items are deemed to belong to the crown and some personal, so it doesn't really give us any new information.

Lumutqueen 05-30-2009 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth (Post 945229)
If Camilla does become Princess Consort, it sort of depends on how it's done. If they do an end run around the current situation where a monarch (and hence spouse) can't take other titles and announce that HM Queen Camilla will be known by the fictitious title of HRH Princess Consort, then she'll still be Queen even though she isn't called Queen, so the terms of Queen Victoria's will would be complied with. However, if legislation is passed to deprive her of the title of Queen and create her Princess Consort in her own right, or however they'd do it, that would be a different situation. Even then, what if she did show up wearing the Oriental Circlet or the George IV diadem? Apart from the tabloids having a field day, what, practically, could anybody do about it?

Quite right. It would be wonderful to see Camilla to recieve the title she deserves, after everything that the press and people around her have put her through she deserves to be by Charles' side when he becomes king. The press can make a fuss about her wearing jewels that she shouldn't have or doing things she shouldn't do but as you say Elspeth they cannot do anything. After everything that the press have thrown at Camilla she has come through with Charles and the royal family behind her. I would be incredible prod to have her as my Queen.
x

Elspeth 05-30-2009 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon (Post 945274)
I wonder where she got her information from regarding the will, or if she details it at all.

We all know that certain items are deemed to belong to the crown and some personal, so it doesn't really give us any new information.

According to the blurb on the book cover, she was granted access to the Royal Archives to do research for the book. This book is obviously aiming to be authoritative, and the Royal Archives access means that something presented as a direct quote (as this statement is) is more than likely exactly that.

The actual passage (1997 edition, page 11) is

"Royal wills are never made public so exactly how Queen Victoria divided her vast private fortune among her descendants cannot be known for certain. However her will included a schedule of jewels that were to be considered 'as belonging to the Crown and to be worn by all future Queens in right of it.' The list included those Hanoverian jewels which Queen Victoria had kept after the resolution of the court case in 1858, the King George IV State Diadem, which now became part of the Crown Regalia, and a number of pieces of jewellery that she had been given by Prince Albert or that they had designed together from stones already in the royal collection. The rest of her jewellery was divided among her children and grandchildren."

So the bit about "all future Queens" might mean that every Queen has to wear each of those pieces at least once!

Roslyn 05-30-2009 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth (Post 945471)
So the bit about "all future Queens" might mean that every Queen has to wear each of those pieces at least once!

:lol: That thought occurred to me when I read that passage.

I had delightful visions of:

He: "Put it on, you have to wear it, Queen Victoria said so!"
She: "No, no, no! It's hideous."
He: "Pleeeease?!"
She: "No!"

:rofl:

One could argue that the words don't say that no-one else can wear them, just that the queens have to.

But as I've said previously, I don't think it matters. They belong to the Crown, and the monarch for the time being can decide who gets to wear the baubles.

Skydragon 05-31-2009 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth (Post 945471)
So the bit about "all future Queens" might mean that every Queen has to wear each of those pieces at least once!

thanks Elspeth, for taking the time to type it all out. :flowers: It could of course mean that all future Queens have a right to wear them, not that they have to or others can't.

With the vast array of goodies that will be at her disposal, will Camilla be distraught at not wearing one or two bits and pieces anyway? :rofl::rofl:

Roslyn 05-31-2009 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon (Post 945629)
With the vast array of goodies that will be at her disposal, will Camilla be distraught at not wearing one or two bits and pieces anyway? :rofl::rofl:

:rofl: I strongly doubt it.

MARG 05-31-2009 10:34 AM

:previous: Camilla seems too comfortable in her own skin to care about all that sort of rubbish. She seems more likely to care if what she doesn't wear is read or misread as a slight against her husband. Like it or not, it is a factor.

Jewelery has always been a status symbol but in royal circles it is in fact, "in your face shorthand"! Just check out the State Banquet for President Sarkozy. The Queen, followed the dictates of the government on that occasion and really pushed the boat out, her sparklers being the icing on the cake (oh how insignificant was that itsy bitsy diamond brooch?).

We all know it and if it didn't really matter we would not be talking about the type of jewels she will be entitled to wear on a "Will Charles Ever Reign? thread.

HM Queen Catherine 06-05-2009 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth (Post 945229)
If Camilla does become Princess Consort, it sort of depends on how it's done. If they do an end run around the current situation where a monarch (and hence spouse) can't take other titles and announce that HM Queen Camilla will be known by the fictitious title of HRH Princess Consort, then she'll still be Queen even though she isn't called Queen, so the terms of Queen Victoria's will would be complied with. However, if legislation is passed to deprive her of the title of Queen and create her Princess Consort in her own right, or however they'd do it, that would be a different situation. Even then, what if she did show up wearing the Oriental Circlet or the George IV diadem? Apart from the tabloids having a field day, what, practically, could anybody do about it?

I believe this whole debate is really a non-issue. Legally, Camilla became The Princess of Wales upon her marriage to Charles.

English law provides that the wife of a noble attains the same status as her husband upon marriage, unless her status is higher than his or she marries a peer. In that case, the wife is entitled to continue to use her higher rank.

For example, in the case of a Duke's daughter, she would be styled Lady Anne. Were Lady Anne to marry a plain Mr. Smith, then she would become Lady Anne Smith after marriage, as she holds the higher rank. If she were to marry the Earl of Devon, then she would become the Countess of Devon because she married a peer, even if she outranks her husband as the daughter of a duke.

Camilla and the royal family decided to style her the Duchess of Cornwall because they deemed it more acceptable than calling her Princess of Wales, and use the Cornwall title to distance her from the legacy of Diana.

When Charles ascends the throne, Camilla will legally be the Queen Consort. What she chooses to call herself, or what the royal family ultimately decides, will not alter her legal status. If she styles herself as Princess Consort, then she is not relinquishing her rights in any way whatsoever, and I expect that no matter what her style will be, she will be crowned with Charles when the time comes.

jcbcode99 06-06-2009 10:56 PM

Well said; I completely agree with everything you wrote. And, I do hope to see her crowned with Charles--wearing a crown!

branchg 06-14-2009 12:58 PM

The question is one that will have to be considered when Charles becomes King. Unlike the current situation, whereas Camilla enjoys all of her husband's styles and titles but has chosen to use her ducal title as her style, once he is King, she has no choice in her style and title except Queen. The wife of the King is Queen and nothing else.

The Government would have to agree the wife of The King is legally Queen Consort, but can be styled by a lesser title and rank as HRH The Princess Consort without legislation being passed by Parliament.

branchg 06-14-2009 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HM Queen Catherine (Post 948082)
What she chooses to call herself, or what the royal family ultimately decides, will not alter her legal status. If she styles herself as Princess Consort, then she is not relinquishing her rights in any way whatsoever, and I expect that no matter what her style will be, she will be crowned with Charles when the time comes.

Constitutionally, she is Queen automatically in her own right when Charles assumes the throne. To be known as HRH The Princess Consort requires The Sovereign to issue letters patent creating Camilla as such.

Since being a Royal Highness and Princess in your own right when you are legally Queen has no precedent, Parliament would have to agree and consent to changing the style and title of the succession. It is a lesser rank for the King's wife and creates a morganatic marriage.

I personally do not think this will come to pass nor do I believe Parliament will agree she can be known as Princess Consort without legislation.

Marsel 06-14-2009 01:12 PM

I agree that the wife of the King can only be Queen; there is really no other option.
However, if the style and title of the Princess Consort is still insisted upon, wouldn't that require legislation not just by the British/Scottish Parliaments, but also by the Parliaments of all the countries of the Realm, that would recognize Charles as their Monarch? If that is the case, I find such outcome highly unlikely.
Of course, Camilla could technically be Princess Consort in Britain (assuming legislation is passed) and Queen Consort in the other Realms, but that's equally improbable.

branchg 06-14-2009 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marsel77 (Post 952793)
However, if the style and title of the Princess Consort is still insisted upon, wouldn't that require legislation not just by the British/Scottish Parliaments, but also by the Parliaments of all the countries of the Realm, what would recognize Charles as their Monarch?

Yes, it would. Probably not a big deal in this day and age, but it adds another layer of complication, especially since it would invite public debate in the Commonwealth and Crown nations about the monarchy.

branchg 06-14-2009 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon (Post 945629)
With the vast array of goodies that will be at her disposal, will Camilla be distraught at not wearing one or two bits and pieces anyway? :rofl::rofl:

With two tiaras currently in her possession that were worn by Queen Elizabeth and Queen Mary, as well as many other significant jewels, I doubt Camilla will be distraught that she doesn't have enough to wear that is worthy of her status.

And whether she is Queen or styled Princess Consort, there are plenty of other jewels from The Sovereign's personal collection at her disposal, not to mention any pieces The Queen gives her or leaves as a bequest.

MelinaB. 06-14-2009 03:16 PM

You all have some good points here.I'll just add my opinion:I believe Prince Charles is going to be a great King and the Duchess of Cornwall will stand by him & fill all of her duties.We're talking about a highly educated & intelligent royal couple.

scooter 06-14-2009 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by branchg (Post 952791)
Constitutionally, she is Queen automatically in her own right when Charles assumes the throne. To be known as HRH The Princess Consort requires The Sovereign to issue letters patent creating Camilla as such.

Since being a Royal Highness and Princess in your own right when you are legally Queen has no precedent, Parliament would have to agree and consent to changing the style and title of the succession. It is a lesser rank for the King's wife and creates a morganatic marriage.

I personally do not think this will come to pass nor do I believe Parliament will agree she can be known as Princess Consort without legislation.

Well, there was no precedent for the marriage of a Prince of Wales (or King) to a divorced woman, but the rules were bent to facilitate the marriage of Charles and Camilla. There has, however, been the precedent of a recent HRH whose wife was denied one, at the whim of the sovereign. If Charles was not being disingenuous at the time of the marriage, he certainly has the ability to make her Princess Consort at the stroke of a (King's) pen.

Skydragon 06-15-2009 05:55 AM

Luckily the CoE and most of the world have moved on and live in the 21st century, where divorcees are treated as human beings.

scooter 06-15-2009 09:44 PM

Perhaps 'divorcees are treated as human beings', but The Queen (or King) is supposed to be an example and moral leader. We shall see if the C of E has 'moved on' when Charles' Coronation and the concept of 'Queen Camilla' is no longer an abstract , In My Humble Opinion.

Lumutqueen 06-16-2009 03:17 PM

I really do hope that Camilla becomes Princess Consort not Queen. If she did then I think it would be unfair to Philip as he has never had the title King. I know times will have changed but the same principles still apply in my book. But I hope she is recognised as Charles' equal and does not stay the Duchess of Cornwall. :flowers:

Iluvbertie 06-16-2009 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lumutqueen (Post 954020)
I really do hope that Camilla becomes Princess Consort not Queen. If she did then I think it would be unfair to Philip as he has never had the title King. I know times will have changed but the same principles still apply in my book. But I hope she is recognised as Charles' equal and does not stay the Duchess of Cornwall. :flowers:


In Britain there are clear cut differences between men and women and what they gain on marriage regarding titles/styles etc.

A woman takes on the female form of her husband's styles/titles whereas a man doesn't.

To deny Camilla the title of Queen Consort gives her lesser rights than every other woman in Britain, in my opinion.

Philip - being the husband of a Queen Regnant has followed the precedence of other Consorts of Queens Regnant - Albert and George of Denmark and remained a Prince.

Camilla needs to follow the precedence of other wives of Kings and become Queen Consort ala Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, Queen Mary, Queen Alexandra, Queen Adelaide, Queen Caroline etc.

The fact that Philip and Camilla are different genders means that they really can't be compared.

If Camilla isn't to be Queen Consort then, in my opinion NO woman can take the titles/styles of their husband but keep their birth status only - so no Princess of Wales, Queens Consort, Duchesses etc.

To apply one standard to one woman is an insult to that woman.

scooter 06-16-2009 09:32 PM

To me it's a question of whether you take Charles at his public 'word' the it is intended that Camilla be known as the Princess Consort. If that is truly what the then King Charles intends, then all he has to do is issue letters patent and sign his name, and it's done, and the whole Queen Camilla, xyz fight goes away. Why continue the fight?

Marsel 06-16-2009 09:37 PM

Personally I would agree to Camilla being known as Princess Consort (perhaps out of respect for the Duke of Edinburgh, although he is not, and has never been a Prince Consort), only on one condition; if all future spouses of the British Monarch were known as Prince/Princess Consort.
That would be fair and truly equal.

However, to deny Camilla the title that is rightfully hers (once Charles becomes King), is really insulting, as Iluvbertie rightfully said.


Quote:

Originally Posted by scooter
To me it's a question of whether you take Charles at his public 'word' the it is intended that Camilla be known as the Princess Consort. If that is truly what the then King Charles intends, then all he has to do is issue letters patent and sign his name, and it's done, and the whole Queen Camilla, xyz fight goes away. Why continue the fight?

Scooter, Letters Patent would not be enough to 'solve' this issue; if Camilla is to be granted the title of the Princess Consort in her own right and intends to be known as such, that would require a Parliament legislation, not just from the British/Scottish Parliaments, but also from the Parliaments of all the countries of the Realm, that will recognize Charles as their King (thanks to branchg, who cleared up that point for me).

scooter 06-16-2009 10:02 PM

Just My Opinion, but I think it's likely that quite a few major members of the Commonwealth/Realm will not be 'recognizing Charles as their king'. My personal wager is that the death of QEII, will ring the death knell on the Commonwealth. Everyone loves HM. Her heir and his future 'Queen' do not inspire quite so much enthusiasm, if you read the ongoing press of the Realm on the subject. Canada, New Zealand and Australia would be high on the list.

branchg 06-16-2009 10:04 PM

I doubt legislation will be passed when the time comes. They're already married and she shares equal rank with her husband. Why should she be denied the right to be Queen? If she wasn't good enough, then they never should have married in the first place.

Wallis was an entirely different matter. She was already divorced once and, then proceeded with another divorce at The King's behest. Edward knew the Government was adamantly opposed to a marriage and wanted to abdicate. He paid the price for his decision and renounced the rights of any future descendants under the Act of Settlement. Given that point, George VI refused to allow his wife and any children to take the style and rank of HRH, limiting them to the Peerage.

Marsel 06-16-2009 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scooter
Just My Opinion, but I think it's likely that quite a few major members of the Commonwealth/Realm will not be 'recognizing Charles as their king'. My personal wager is that the death of QEII, will ring the death knell on the Commonwealth. Everyone loves HM. Her heir and his future 'Queen' do not inspire quite so much enthusiasm, if you read the ongoing press of the Realm on the subject. Canada, New Zealand and Australia would be high on the list.

I believe that the death of Queen Elizabeth (long may she live) will only bring the King and the countries of the Realm closer; the death of one Monarch and the accession of the other were usually times of great national unity across the Empire (and later the Commonwealth). I sincerely doubt the nationalists would choose the moment of Her Majesty's death to push forward their agenda - that would be just tacky.

With the possible exception of Australia, I just don't see any other country, where anti-Monarchist movements are strong enough to affect the course of events, once Charles is King.


Branchg, I agree with you that it is highly unlikely the Parliaments (whether British or the Commonwealth ones) will pass, or are asked to pass a legislation like that. Camilla is the wife of the Prince of Wales; once Charles is King, she shouldn't be denied the title that is rightfully hers.

Mermaid1962 06-16-2009 11:18 PM

All 10 provinces in Canada have to vote the same way in order to change part of our Constitution. The likelihood of that happening to abolish the monarchy isn't very likely. For one thing, some provinces are more loyal than others.:flowers:

Quote:

Originally Posted by scooter (Post 954209)
Just My Opinion, but I think it's likely that quite a few major members of the Commonwealth/Realm will not be 'recognizing Charles as their king'. My personal wager is that the death of QEII, will ring the death knell on the Commonwealth. Everyone loves HM. Her heir and his future 'Queen' do not inspire quite so much enthusiasm, if you read the ongoing press of the Realm on the subject. Canada, New Zealand and Australia would be high on the list.


branchg 06-16-2009 11:53 PM

The Crown Commonwealth nations would automatically recognize the new Sovereign as head of state, the same as the United Kingdom, under the Act of Settlement. Of course, they could choose to deestablish the Crown with legislation and become republics at any time.

The Commonwealth of Nations has to formally appoint a new Sovereign as the head. While in practice this should be routine, it is not automatic nor legally bound to the Crown. The members all have to assent to it.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:08 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises