The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1261  
Old 04-19-2021, 04:21 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fijiro View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
It was the future king and not the papers or politicians who told the public that his wife would not be his queen.
Camilla will be Queen Camilla. She is not a Princess, so if they want her to be "Princess Consort", they would first have to create her a Princess in her own rights. But as a Queen she is just a consort to the King.
I am not clear on how your second statement relates to the first. But it does not bear on the fact that the concept of Camilla being known as Princess Consort rather than Queen is only taken seriously because it was her own husband who announced it in 2005, and not because of politicians or the press.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
She will no longer be a princess once Charles is king; that's the problem of making her a 'princess consort'.
Not wishing to repeat the discussions on this issue that have been had in the thread on titles, I will say that while I think the Princess Consort plan has been abandoned, I wouldn't expect most politicians or members of the British public to consider it a problem.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
I can't recall but I thought that they had taken the bit about Princess Consort off the webiste for a time and then it went back
No, it was not put back.

FAQs | Prince of Wales
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1262  
Old 04-19-2021, 04:30 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 765
Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarRose View Post
Charles has already been voted as the next Head of the Commonwealth. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...onwealth-queen

I know there was some discussion about rotating the Head in the future, but it was my understanding that alternatives were not from within the Royal Family itself, but representatives of each Commonwealth country. In other words, I don't believe there was any serious movement to name William or Harry as the future Head, skipping Charles.

Should Charles pass away before the Queen, I believe William will be voted as the next Head, or the rotation proposition will pass, and William would be the U.K. representative for the U.K's time of rotation. I do not think a different Royal will be voted as Head of the Commonwealth in William's lifetime

(I also think that the rotation scheme will likely be put in place someday, not so much under an anti-royalist statement, but as a natural evolution of the success of the Commonwealth's growth. And with a pared-down monarchy, it may greatly benefit William and George down the line to not be the sole Head of the Commonwealth.)
You are right, the discussion about future rotating the Commonwealth Heads is to be amongst Heads of States each Commonwealth country, and it was not anti-royalist at all.

There is no way William(now) or Harry(ever) would be voted, because they are not Heads of State, and even Charles will only Head it once he becomes Head of State of UK.

I am sure when Charles heads it, he can send whomever he wants to represent him at the meetings in other countries.

I do not know if the Commonwealth Realms Heads of Governments would also be considered Heads of State when it comes to rotation!
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1263  
Old 04-19-2021, 05:08 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
The population of Spain is approximately two-thirds the size of Britain's, not much smaller.

I would add that the Spanish constitution says that the King "assumes the highest representation of the Spanish State in international relations, especially with the nations of its historical community."


As a result, the Spanish royal family has a special connection with countries that are part of the former Spanish colonial empire, especially the so-called Ibero-American countries. In fact, the King of Spain is the honorary president of the Organization of Ibero-American States and attends all Ibero-American Summits, which are held annually. As Prince of Asturias, D. Felipe is also known to have attended several presidential inaugurations in Ibero-American countries and he and Doña Letizia have traveled extensively in Latin America, both as Prince/Princess of Asturias and as King/Queen.



It is not quite as broad as the BRF's role in the Commonwealth, but the Spanish monarchy also has a more limited multinational representation role that goes beyond the borders of Spain properly.
Reply With Quote
  #1264  
Old 04-19-2021, 05:30 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I would add that the Spanish constitution says that the King "assumes the highest representation of the Spanish State in international relations, especially with the nations of its historical community."

As a result, the Spanish royal family has a special connection with countries that are part of the former Spanish colonial empire, especially the so-called Ibero-American countries. In fact, the King of Spain is the honorary president of the Organization of Ibero-American States and attends all Ibero-American Summits, which are held annually. As Prince of Asturias, D. Felipe is also known to have attended several presidential inaugurations in Ibero-American countries and he and Doña Letizia have traveled extensively in Latin America, both as Prince/Princess of Asturias and as King/Queen.

It is not quite as broad as the BRF's role in the Commonwealth, but the Spanish monarchy also has a more limited multinational representation role that goes beyond the borders of Spain properly.
And currently, they have a problem in sending representation to the various events (mostly inaugurations) that they would have attended previously. So, I think the Spanish case shows that it is rather instable if you fully rely on the direct line of succession - especially in the first years of a new reign when the heir is underage.
Reply With Quote
  #1265  
Old 04-19-2021, 05:32 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Yes I think that Princess consort was a bad idea.. but they may stick iwth it. I dont think that anyone wil ojbect if its declared that she wants to be known as Princess Consort, even if it is not her official title.
There's also the odd, lame duck idea that Camilla could be known as The Duchess of Lancaster. I don't think that's been done before. The Queen is actually the *Duke* of Lancaster.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #1266  
Old 04-19-2021, 05:35 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
There's also the odd, lame duck idea that Camilla could be known as The Duchess of Lancaster. I don't think that's been done before. The Queen is actually the *Duke* of Lancaster.
At least that would be based in Charles' actual title, so if they don't want to make her a princess in her own right nor want her to be queen; this might be a solution.
Reply With Quote
  #1267  
Old 04-19-2021, 05:44 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,471
We in Lancashire do drink formal toasts to "The Queen, Duke of Lancaster" :-) , but I think the last person to be addressed and known as "Duchess of Lancaster" must have been Katherine Swynford!


The Princess Consort idea probably seemed sensible in 2005, when some people were still very wound up about Diana, but I don't see why Camilla shouldn't be known by her proper title of Queen, when the time comes. But we'll see.
Reply With Quote
  #1268  
Old 04-19-2021, 05:58 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
We in Lancashire do drink formal toasts to "The Queen, Duke of Lancaster" :-) , but I think the last person to be addressed and known as "Duchess of Lancaster" must have been Katherine Swynford!


The Princess Consort idea probably seemed sensible in 2005, when some people were still very wound up about Diana, but I don't see why Camilla shouldn't be known by her proper title of Queen, when the time comes. But we'll see.
I believe it was "We'll see" that was the answer when either Charles or Camilla was asked in person (can't remember which at this time) about the Queen dilemma.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #1269  
Old 04-19-2021, 07:35 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Yes, it would likely apply to hundreds of people. By the terms of the Bill of Rights 1688 and the Act of Settlement 1700, the line of succession to the throne includes all of the heirs of the body (the term denotes, more or less, her legally acknowledged blood descendants, with the exclusion of descendants who were born out of wedlock and their descendants) of Princess Sophia (1630-1714) who are Protestant and have never been Catholic. (Note that marriages which required but did not receive the consent of the British monarch under the Royal Marriages Act 1772 were deemed void in British law, and as a result the descendants from those marriages were deemed born out of wedlock and are excluded from succession to the British throne or British peerages.)
You're right. "Apply to" wasn't quite the right wording for what I meant. I should have said "Would this, in real terms, affect anyone other than H&M's and Lady Davina Windsor's children?" Is there anyone other than H&M's child(ren) and Davina's children who were/are being raised outside the UK, and are high enough in the line of succession that the people think of them and refer to them as being in the line of succession?
Reply With Quote
  #1270  
Old 04-19-2021, 09:44 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fijiro View Post
The Head of the Commonwealth of Nations does not have to be a British Monarchy, and it is not hereditary. The 54 Nations have equal rights and can vote to pick another Head. That is why the Queen, at the last meeting, campaigned for Prince Charles to be voted as the next Head of the Commonwealth of Nations. After Prince Charles, who knows what direction the 54 Countries that form the Commonwealth of Nations will go to elect their next Head.
I am aware of that but now that the first two Heads of the Commonwealth have been the monarchs of the UK and the next one will be it is setting up a precedent to make it hereditary. It will also probably be another 20 years before they have to deal with the next Head anyway. It could even be longer, depending on Charles' longevity.

The Queen's speech was also clear - in that as her father had been the first Head and she had inherited the position from him she hoped they would go with the consistency and appoint Charles her successor. She didn't 'campaign' but asked. Long before that meeting the former Australian PM, Julia Gillard, went on record as saying she couldn't see anyone better to take over from the Queen than Charles (and she is very much a republican). She was PM of Australia 2010-2013 and she said this during that time.
Reply With Quote
  #1271  
Old 04-19-2021, 09:45 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
We in Lancashire do drink formal toasts to "The Queen, Duke of Lancaster" :-) , but I think the last person to be addressed and known as "Duchess of Lancaster" must have been Katherine Swynford!


The Princess Consort idea probably seemed sensible in 2005, when some people were still very wound up about Diana, but I don't see why Camilla shouldn't be known by her proper title of Queen, when the time comes. But we'll see.

Queen Victoria would sometimes travel 'incognito' on the continent as Duchess of Lancaster. I think eyebrows would have been raised if she had gone as the 'Duke' but she did use Duchess of Lancaster on occasions.
Reply With Quote
  #1272  
Old 04-19-2021, 09:47 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
I am not clear on how your second statement relates to the first. But it does not bear on the fact that the concept of Camilla being known as Princess Consort rather than Queen is only taken seriously because it was her own husband who announced it in 2005, and not because of politicians or the press.




Not wishing to repeat the discussions on this issue that have been had in the thread on titles, I will say that while I think the Princess Consort plan has been abandoned, I wouldn't expect most politicians or members of the British public to consider it a problem.




No, it was not put back.

FAQs | Prince of Wales
Under which question. It certainly isn't one of the questions asked in the FAQs directly.

FAQs
Do The Prince and The Duchess attend church?

Does The Prince dislike all modern architecture?

Why does The Duchess have her own home at Raymill?

Does The Prince advocate untested and dangerous alternative medical therapies?

What do the personal staff do?

How are The Prince and The Duchess's official activities funded?

As an environmental leader, why does The Prince of Wales drive around in a Bentley and own an Aston Martin?

How many people work for The Prince of Wales's Household?

What is Duchy Organics? Is it anything to do with the Duchy of Cornwall?

Who pays for The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and The Duke and Duchess of Sussex?

Does The Prince of Wales pay tax?

Why doesn't the Duchy of Cornwall pay corporation tax?

Does The Prince of Wales intend to have a multi-faith Coronation?

Why is The Prince of Wales asked for his approval on various Government bills?

What does The Prince of Wales do to reduce his own carbon footprint?

Are the reports that The Duchess is still a smoker true?
Reply With Quote
  #1273  
Old 04-20-2021, 12:15 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 336
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meee View Post
The flexibility requirement may well be the biggest barrier to part time royals. It all depends how flexible they’re required to be. The Royals having more distant relatives on essentially a zero hours contract and expected to be available for duties whenever asked isn’t going to work, since they can’t expect the employer of a part time royal to let them drop everything for an engagement at a moment’s notice (or to expect an employer to want to employ Charlotte or Louis’s future children on that basis.) It’s not good for their business and it won’t be good for workplace relations either. “HRH Prince(ss) X / Lord Y / Lady Z gets to come and go as they please.”

If it’s a case of the family member concerned having their diary set out for them far enough in advance to book annual leave if an engagement falls within their working hours, there’d be no problem (assuming of course that the family member does not get their leave allocated for them, as that could end up with others having to accommodate the part time royal.) If it’s as simple as part time royals being expected to step in at short notice at a time that it is known that they are not working from time to time, then that seems reasonable.

Slimming things down might be achieved via the spouses to some degree, following the example of Anne. Only the spouse of the heir might be a working royal. Everyone has different favourites within the family and that would allow us to see more of them at a lower cost while those born royal wouldn’t be shuffled down the order by the spouses of relatives closer to the throne than them.
I second that.
It would be hard to find this so called "perfect job" (high-paying without potential royal-trading accusation, flexible schedule) if a long-term part-time royals had been put on the table. This part-time royal should be ready to receive double scrutiny, and so did his/her employer.

Harry is no longer working royal, but his associations still being picked apart by the British press.
William was a part-time royal with a paying job for few years and he was criticised for being lazy in both his royal duty and ambulance pilot job. And he gave all his salary to charity back then. I bet there would be more criticism if he took the money for himself.
Or maybe pull a "Waity-Kaity" style post Jigsaw: join the family business, maybe by working at on of Duchy of Cornwall farm?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Claude View Post
(...)

The time needed to do royal work has also been being reduced due to the "the empire" shrinking, along with modern technology enabling things particularly the advances in transportation, and more recently the acceptance of doing work remotely.

Charles supposedly was given a lot of say in The Way Ahead group, which was formed in the early-mid 1990s because the decisions made would affect his reign, even though presumably, it was not felt that his ascension was imminent. This same sentiment has been expressed about subsequent self-examination and reform efforts by the BRF. Given this I believe that William will also be given considerable say in any self-examination and reform efforts because it will affect his reign.

I suspect that research and analysis has been taking place over the years and that will be a key driver in decisions made. What I assume is being examined is does having the Duke of Gloucester visit a pensioner group in New Castle increase or sustain the British Royal Family's relevance and affection? What about his work with his patronages? Now ask the same question for more visible non-heir royals like Princess Anne or Prince Edward.

If it turns out that bread and butter visits and support of patronages add materially to the BRF's relevance and affection, and the work is beyond the capacity of the monarch and the heir, then yes, other royals will be conscripted to help out as older royals pass away, reduce their activities or retire. If needed, I can see Princess Beatrice being asked to take on royal duties, as opposed to Prince Harry being asked to return to royal duties. Even though it is expected for Charles to be the next monarch, serious consideration has to be given to laying the groundwork for William's reign, ergo, it does not matter if Charles has issues with Andrew and thinks his daughter is a twit, what William feels he needs during his reign is paramount.

(...)
This Covid situation proved that it's possible to do 6-9 engagement in a day when doing it remotely. And gone was the day when the royal tour went on for weeks or months. Reduction in traveling time can mean opportunity to do more engagements.

Below is the 2017 engagement based on Iluvbertie's count on the engagement thread (ranked by days working, excluding the cousins, but their total - of the 4 - is 549 engagement in 224 days):
- Anne 521 engagements in 179 days
- Charles 534 in 174 days
- Andrew 325 in 140 days
- Edward 285 in 124 days
- The Queen 273 in 114 days
- William 187 in 106 days
- Harry 176 in 98 days
- Sophie 203 in 95 days
- Camilla 216 in 87 days
- Catherine 99 in 59 days

I don't know how it is for British government officials (I consider working royal role similar as government official), but working in private sector in average I works at least 200 days in a years. And I also understand that a lot of works happens behind the scene unrecorded, but it seems the Wessexes and the Cambridges still can add at least 60 (if not more) days each to do some engagements.

If every working royal works 200 days each, 6-8 working royals will be enough to get similar total engagements as those above. In this case, what Somebody wrote on post #1247 can work. When Charles becomes king, William and Catherine can cover the numbers that used to be Charles' and Anne's, while the Wessexes and Anne do the rest, and later when the Cambridge kids are in their mid 20s they gradually take over the Wessexes and Anne where the latter three will become sort of the current Kents and Gloucesters (and by that time, the type of engagement could be very different than now so maybe even Charlotte and Louis wouldn't need to be working royals). 3 sets royal rotation: in the same time 1 set in London hold the fort, 1 sets go abroad on tour, 1 set go to countryside (it's not that foreign tour/trip abroad is done every day anyway).

As for patronages, Philip had retired for 3 years yet he's still patron of hundreds organisations. What I want to say is, in the future what's the meaning of this patronages for BRF? Just attaching their name and promoting them with a visit once in every 3-4 days, sending cards or letters of support one a year? Or a more hand-on patron which will correlate to their ability to the numbers of patronages they could handle? However, there's social media that can be utilised to highlight the said charities/patronages as alternative if visit is not feasible.
Reply With Quote
  #1274  
Old 04-20-2021, 06:47 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Under which question. It certainly isn't one of the questions asked in the FAQs directly.
I think you misread my comment; it stated that the question was not put back.

Its removal in 2018 was reported on by the media and discussed at length on TRF.

https://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...ml#post2080317
Reply With Quote
  #1275  
Old 04-20-2021, 06:56 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Its just an impression I had, that for a time, there seemed to be a drawing away from the Princess Consort idea, and a hint or 2 that perhaps Camilla would be titled Queen. I htough that perhaps there had been soem statement on the website, but wasn't sure. But I think that perhaps they DID have hopes a few years ago that they could adhere to normal practice and Camilla would be queen.. and in the last few years, it seems like her approval ratings adn Charles' are not so good and they are returning to being cautious again....
Reply With Quote
  #1276  
Old 04-20-2021, 07:01 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Its just an impression I had, that for a time, there seemed to be a drawing away from the Princess Consort idea, and a hint or 2 that perhaps Camilla would be titled Queen. I htough that perhaps there had been soem statement on the website, but wasn't sure. But I think that perhaps they DID have hopes a few years ago that they could adhere to normal practice and Camilla would be queen.. and in the last few years, it seems like her approval ratings adn Charles' are not so good and they are returning to being cautious again....
No, there has been no statement on the website that Camilla will be Queen (it would certainly have been in the news if there had been). The hints that she would be queen were conveyed in informal comments by her and her husband in 2010-11. You will find details about those comments by clicking on the article in the link above.
Reply With Quote
  #1277  
Old 04-20-2021, 07:03 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
No, there has been no statement on the website that Camilla will be Queen (it would certainly have been in the news if there had been). The hints that she would be queen were conveyed in informal comments by her and her husband in 2010-11. You will find details about those comments by clicking on the article in the link above.
No I know there was no statement on the website
Reply With Quote
  #1278  
Old 04-20-2021, 07:06 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
No I know there was no statement on the website
I was replying to your comment "perhaps there had been soem statement on the website", so I am confused as to what you referred to.
Reply With Quote
  #1279  
Old 04-20-2021, 07:55 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
I thought that they had restored the bit about Princess Consort.. signifiying that they were thinking again of Cam being Pss Consort
Reply With Quote
  #1280  
Old 04-20-2021, 08:12 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Aberdeen, United Kingdom
Posts: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Japan, which also has a ceremonial monarchy whose royal family's role is to serve as a symbol of the nation, has double the population of the UK, but fewer working royals. They are also expected to slim down dramatically in the decades ahead.

Further out, there are republics such as China or the United States which have much larger populations than the UK, but choose to function without royalty or family members of the head of state working for "the firm".

I haven't seen any allegations about an official statement, nor would I expect one during this reign.
Japan is a very different case. The insistence on male rulers only, the loss of princesses when they marry, the power of the Imperial Household Agency, all make comparisons with the European monarchies fairly meaningless.

Comparisons with republics are interesting but again not really relevant, unless you're making the case for abolishing the monarchy and installing a republic in its place. Then you have to decide which, if any, of the various forms of government/Head of State you want to have.

Re Charles and slimming down, it is regularly stated in newspapers and on royal forums that Charles wants to slim down the monarchy. I'm just saying that there is absolutely no evidence that this is true.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
camilla parker bowles, camilla parker-bowles, camilla's family


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Future and Popularity of the Spanish Monarchy TODOI Royal Family of Spain 1678 08-15-2021 08:22 AM
The Future of the Danish Monarchy Empress Royal House of Denmark 797 05-31-2021 02:27 PM
Future of the Belgian monarchy Marengo Royal Family of Belgium 122 09-27-2020 08:03 AM
Future of the Dutch Monarchy Marengo Dutch Royals 42 09-25-2020 03:53 AM




Popular Tags
american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian british british royal family buckingham palace camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii family tree genetics george vi gradenigo harry and meghan hello! highgrove history hochberg hypothetical monarchs japan japanese imperial family japan history jewellery kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos książ castle liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers meghan markle monarchists monarchy mongolia names plantinum jubilee pless politics portugal prince harry queen elizabeth ii queen victoria royal ancestry solomon j solomon spanish royal family st edward sussex suthida thai royal family unfinished portrait united states united states of america welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:02 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×