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)

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.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises