Will Charles Ever Reign?

[KingJosh]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

.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]

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

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

 

[Elspeth]

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

And yes, I know I'm off topic.

 

[Madame Royale]

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

 

[Jo of Palatine]

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]

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

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

 

[Al_bina]

Speaking off-topic ...

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]

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]

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

 

[Harry's polo shirt]

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

 

[Skydragon]

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]

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.

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

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

 

[jcbcode99]

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

 

[KathyMoore]

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]

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

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

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

 

[Al_bina]

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

 

[COUNTESS]

As long as he knows in which direction to walk.

 

[Avicenna]

As long as he can carry the crown on his head

 

[Roslyn]

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

I think mental alertness is more important than physical strength.

 

[scooter]

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]

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

 

[Skydragon]

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! to revert to any former name

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. Deference is still shown to the Landed Gentry & Aristocrats, IMO & experience.

 

[jcbcode99]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.