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)

Roslyn 06-16-2009 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marsel77 (Post 954196)
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.

This is how I feel, too. I think it's very unjust.

I think it's most unfortunate that the official monarchy site currently says she will be known as The Princess Consort when Charles accedes. It was easy to argue that the statement of intent made at the time of the marriage was just that: a statement of what was intended at that time, and that things changed. But for the site to still say she will be so known makes it harder to change tack when the time comes.

Elspeth 06-17-2009 12:04 AM

Well, maybe when the time comes it's going to be "oopsie, whoever knew that we'd need to jump through all those legal hoops?"

and we can all just say "we did..."

MARG 06-17-2009 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scooter (Post 953181)
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.

If there was no precedent what rules would there have been needing to be bent? :confused:

Iluvbertie 06-17-2009 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MARG (Post 954252)
If there was no precedent what rules would there have been needing to be bent? :confused:



I think Scooter was referring to the fact that the CofE was easing its attitude to divorcees in the late 90s.

Some people see this attitude change as happening because of Charles rather than the fact that it was happening anyway and Charles was able to benefit by being able to marry the woman he loves despite both of them being divorced. The new official attitude just formulated what had been fairly common practice anyway.

I might add there has never been any legislation that denied the throne to a divorced person or one married to a divorced person.

Charlotte1 06-17-2009 05:40 AM

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.

Australians don't look to their leaders for moral guidance, they are more interested in 'can they do the job'. In the past Australians have voted in a Prime Minister (and also re-elected him) who had publicly admitted that he was an alcoholic and had repeatedly been unfaithful to his wife. The republican debate in Australia focuses solely on Australians having a Head of State who is Australian and lives in Australia. Charles's private life is not a factor, not even the tabloid press or women's magazines make it an issue.
New Zealand had a republican Prime Minister who recently was voted out of office, the new government has just reinstated Imperial Honours, New Zealanders again can be created Peers (Sir, Dame) Charles's private life isn't an issue.
Canada's likelihood of becoming a republic is miniscule due to the fact that it would be so difficult and also would fire up the whole separatist issue with Quebec, no government in Canada would like to open that can of worms.

Besides these 3 countries, there are another 13 that recognise the British monarch as Head of State there is nothing coming from them in relation to becoming republics when Charles becomes king.

Tabloid stories and moralistic attitudes don't change systems of government. Far more intellectual arguments do.

MARG 06-17-2009 07:53 AM

:previous: I'm with you on this. New Zealand has had Prime Minister's with less than pristine backgrounds. To be honest, we just can't be bothered being the "Morality Monitors" that some non-citizens seem to expect. And, as Charlotte 1 noted, we recently voted out a sort-of, may-be, wanna-be, Republican-leaning, government. The acceptance of the anti-Republican move reflects in the acceptance of the reinstatement of the Imperial Queens Birthday Honours List IMHO reflects a feeling that an ex politician as Head of State leaves something to be desired.

Strangely enough the Monarchy in the person of HM Queen Elizabeth II and her stalwart hubby, not to mention her heir Prince of Wales and his wife the Duchess of Cornwall, seem to be perceived as a sort of stabilising institution in a very unstable time!

Warren 06-17-2009 09:02 AM

The discussion in this thread is circular and repetitive and there appears to be nothing new to say.
Unless he predeceases the Queen or something extraordinary happens, Charles will become King in due course.

The thread will remain closed.

The British Forum moderators


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:13 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises