The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1281  
Old 04-20-2021, 09:03 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,803
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

I found it on the website of the Royal family:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150307...ceofWales.aspx


They say she "will be known as" HRH The Princess Consort just like she is known as "THe Duchess of Cornwall". But that does mean that Charles, being king, has to create her a HRH and a Princess of the Uk (just like it happened to "The" Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh). Okay, that can be done, but is it then the law for the queen consort? Will it happen to Catherine when William becomes king? Can HM the queen consort have a second title and style?



I know Maxima was created HRH and a princess of the Netherlands in her own right and she never used the title of the "princess of Orange" when Beatrix was still queen but now she is "known as" queen Maxima and that's how it has ever been in the Dutch history (not that they had so many kings with queen consorts...)
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1282  
Old 04-20-2021, 09:37 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
I found it on the website of the Royal family:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150307...ceofWales.aspx


They say she "will be known as" HRH The Princess Consort just like she is known as "THe Duchess of Cornwall". But that does mean that Charles, being king, has to create her a HRH and a Princess of the Uk (just like it happened to "The" Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh). Okay, that can be done, but is it then the law for the queen consort? Will it happen to Catherine when William becomes king? Can HM the queen consort have a second title and style?



I know Maxima was created HRH and a princess of the Netherlands in her own right and she never used the title of the "princess of Orange" when Beatrix was still queen but now she is "known as" queen Maxima and that's how it has ever been in the Dutch history (not that they had so many kings with queen consorts...)
The wife of the Prince of Orange is no longer known as the Princess of Orange. Under the Wet Lidmaatschap Koninklijk Huis of 2002, the title of Princess of Orange is reserved to the heiress presumptive to the Dutch throne. Under the same act, however, the wife of the Prince of Orange can be created a Princess of the Netherlands (Prinses der Nederlanden) in her own right by a separate royal decree, which is what was done in Máxima's case. In addition, Máxima was also created a Princess of Orange-Nassau in her own right and is referred to as "Queen Máxima" solely by courtesy.

Queen Mathilde is also a Princess of Belgium in her own right (by royal decree issued by King Albert II) and, like Máxima, she uses the tiltle of Queen (but not "Queen of the Belgians") and the style of Majesty by courtesy.

So we have:

Her Majesty Queen Máxima, Princess of the Netherlands, Princess of Orange-Nassau.


Her Majesty Queen Mathilde (Marie Christine Ghislaine comtesse d'Udekem d'Acoz), Princess of Belgium.


Letizia falls under a dfferent category. Before Felipe's accession to the throne she was HRH The Princess of Asturias, and also Princess of Girona, Princess of Viana, Duchess of Montblanc, Countess of Cervera and Lady of Balaguer, since, under the RD 1368/1987, the wife of the Prince of Asturias shares all of her husband's titles and styles. Since 2014, as wife of the King of Spain, she has the official title of Queen (but not Queen of Spain) and the style of Majesty, again under the RD 1368/1987, and is no longer a princess. So we have in this case:


Su Majestad la Reina Doña Letizia (Ortiz Rocasolano).

In Sweden, Silvia is officially "Queen of Sweden" according to the Royal House website (Hennes Majestät Silvia Renate, Sveriges Drottning or simply H.M. Drottning Silvia). Likewise, I believe Sonja is "Queen of Norway". Neither one is a princess.


In principle, I don't see a problem in a Queen consort also holding a title of Princess. As shown above,that is the case in Belgium and in the Netherlands (where BTW the Kings are also princes), but it is not very common elsewhere.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1283  
Old 04-20-2021, 11:37 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 765
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
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.
A lot of lobbying goes on behind the scenes before any idea is tabled. You don't believe that when she "asked" was the first time the subject was mentioned? Out of respect for the Queen, all member countries representatives voted for Prince Charles. We don't know who they will vote for next, plus most of these Heads will be out of the offices by then, replaced by new people. Also included in the discussion about rotation was term limits. It's OK for Julia Gillard to voice her opinion but she does't have a vote.

The commonwealth declaration stipulates that the relationship between member countries is equal in status. There are 37 republic countries (the other 16 are realms) who can be voted to Head the Commonwealth. If one member country is the only country heading the commonwealth FOREVER, it is like colonization all over again using "backdoor".
Reply With Quote
  #1284  
Old 04-20-2021, 01:33 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fijiro View Post
The commonwealth declaration stipulates that the relationship between member countries is equal in status. There are 37 republic countries (the other 16 are realms) who can be voted to Head the Commonwealth. If one member country is the only country heading the commonwealth FOREVER, it is like colonization all over again using "backdoor".



I don't see it that way. The position of Head of the Commonwealth is not an executive one. The Commonwealth's chief executive officer is instead the Secretary-General, and the office of Secretary-General, since its inception in 1965, has been occupied by citizens of different countries (Canada, Guyana, Nigeria, New Zealand, India, and now the United Kingdom).


Given that Head of the Commonwealth is merely a symbolic or ceremonial position, it makes sense, for historical reasons, that he or she should be the same person who occupies the British throne since a present or former connection to the British Crown is what (most) Commonwealth countries have in common and what brought them together in the first place.


If you think about it, the same also applies to the Organization of Ibero-American States where the King of Spain (first Juan Carlos I and now Felipe VI) serves as Honorary President whereas the General Secretariat has rotated between different countries (according to Wikipedia, Uruguay, El Salvador, Peru, Colombia, Argentina, Brazil, and Spain properly).


Of course, you may subscribe to the opinion that all those international organizations that originated from previous European colonial empires (the Commonwealth, OEI, CPLP. La Francophonie, etc.) are "neocolonist" tools that the former European powers use to maintain their influence in their former dependent territories, but I personally disagree as I see great value in those kinds of organizations and in the type of work they do, especially in poorer countries.
Reply With Quote
  #1285  
Old 04-20-2021, 02:11 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635
There’s an article in Vanity Fair by Anna Pasternak suggesting that there may nor be any crown for Charles to inherit if William and Harry don’t reconcile. To me, this is the print version of clickbait and couldn’t possibly be more stupid or wrong. Look at this ridiculous quote:


Quote:
“The Sussexes have sparked something so fundamentally incendiary in this country that it is changing the face of Britain,” says Pasternak. “I’m not 100 percent sure that we will see Charles ascend to the throne.”
The BRF has gone on with their business for a year - they aren’t missing Harry and Meghan in the sense that they are falling apart. The Sussexes are also incredibly unpopular in the UK. There is no Republican uprising.
Reply With Quote
  #1286  
Old 04-20-2021, 02:21 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
There’s an article in Vanity Fair by Anna Pasternak suggesting that there may nor be any crown for Charles to inherit if William and Harry don’t reconcile. To me, this is the print version of clickbait and couldn’t possibly be more stupid or wrong. Look at this ridiculous quote:




The BRF has gone on with their business for a year - they aren’t missing Harry and Meghan in the sense that they are falling apart. The Sussexes are also incredibly unpopular in the UK. There is no Republican uprising.



Charles is not very popular (in fact, he now has a negative or barely positive favorability rating in the UK ?). William and Kate are popular with favorability ratings around +60.



The downfall of the monarchy in a constitutionally stable democracy, which is the case of the UK, requires the existence of a political movement supported by at least one of the major national parties (or a large segment thereof) and by other key players e.g. in the press/media, the business community, etc.



Honestly, I don't see that in the UK in the near future. I don't see it either even in other Commonwealth realms like Canada although those conditions I mentioned above do exist in other countries like Australia, and the change of reign from the Queen to Charles may provide an excuse for a second referendum that may succeed this time.
Reply With Quote
  #1287  
Old 04-20-2021, 02:27 PM
Blog Real's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 7,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
There’s an article in Vanity Fair by Anna Pasternak suggesting that there may nor be any crown for Charles to inherit if William and Harry don’t reconcile. To me, this is the print version of clickbait and couldn’t possibly be more stupid or wrong. Look at this ridiculous quote:




The BRF has gone on with their business for a year - they aren’t missing Harry and Meghan in the sense that they are falling apart. The Sussexes are also incredibly unpopular in the UK. There is no Republican uprising.
I do not believe that. The monarchy is strong and will continue. William and Catherine are popular and have everything to become good monarchs in the United Kingdom.
Charles may not be very popular, but he will do his job well as king, I think.

And this whole story around the Dukes of Sussex will one day calm down.
__________________
My blogs about monarchies
Reply With Quote
  #1288  
Old 04-20-2021, 02:32 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
There’s an article in Vanity Fair by Anna Pasternak suggesting that there may nor be any crown for Charles to inherit if William and Harry don’t reconcile. To me, this is the print version of clickbait and couldn’t possibly be more stupid or wrong. Look at this ridiculous quote:




The BRF has gone on with their business for a year - they aren’t missing Harry and Meghan in the sense that they are falling apart. The Sussexes are also incredibly unpopular in the UK. There is no Republican uprising.

Anna has been around for decades and apart from her name (she is somehow related to Boris of "Dr. Schiwago" and literature noble prize fame) she has never been important or to be taken seriously when it comes to Royal stories (she is a bestselling author, though). Her book "Princess in love" about Diana and James Hewitt is nothing you need to have read if you cared for the truth.
Reply With Quote
  #1289  
Old 04-20-2021, 02:34 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Charles is not very popular (in fact, he now has a negative or barely positive favorability rating in the UK ?). William and Kate are popular with favorability ratings around +60.



The downfall of the monarchy in a constitutionally stable democracy, which is the case of the UK, requires the existence of a political movement supported by at least one of the major national parties (or a large segment thereof) and by other key players e.g. in the press/media, the business community, etc.



Honestly, I don't see that in the UK in the near future. I don't see it either even in other Commonwealth realms like Canada although those conditions I mentioned above do exist in other countries like Australia, and the change of reign from the Queen to Charles may provide an excuse for a new referedum that, in the second chance, may be successful.
Believe me, I know how unpopular Charles is, sigh (sorry, it frustrates me).

You’re probably right, and that’s fine. I just resent the idea that what is really a personal feud between brothers (H and C as well, but that’s not sexy) could ever bring down the monarchy. This is the kind of thing people will lap up, and it’s the furthest thing from the truth. You spoke the truths, and Anna should know that.
Reply With Quote
  #1290  
Old 04-20-2021, 02:37 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blog Real View Post
I do not believe that. The monarchy is strong and will continue. William and Catherine are popular and have everything to become good monarchs in the United Kingdom.
Charles may not be very popular, but he will do his job well as king, I think.

And this whole story around the Dukes of Sussex will one day calm down.
Agreed.

Kataryn:

Quote:
Anna has been around for decades and apart from her name (she is somehow related to Boris of "Dr. Schiwago" and literature noble prize fame) she has never been important or to be taken seriously when it comes to Royal stories (she is a bestselling author, though). Her book "Princess in love" about Diana and James Hewitt is nothing you need to have read if you cared for the truth.
Yeah, I thought she was ok until after I read more of her post interviews about her book on Wallis, and finding out she wrote trash about Diana and JH. I don’t take her seriously, but it’s annoying. I guess I’ll have to remind my mother that when she reads the article to carry a large shaker of salt with her
Reply With Quote
  #1291  
Old 04-20-2021, 02:38 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: São Paulo, Brazil
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
Unless there is a formal statement from the Palace I will not be lead astray by these anonymous sources or royal reporters who think they are psychic. Does anyone else think that there could not be a worse time to announce a so-call Way-Ahead redux? Good heavens, the Duke is barely cold in the grave and the media are stirring the pot. Contrary to the breathless reporting, HM the Queen is not yet lying beside her husband and it is and obscenity to treat her as if she does not even exist, that she has no say in what will be happening in her own home and family.

Although one can argue it's distasteful, this kind of ''behaviour'' is quite common when a reign is closer to its end. It has happened many times before. Considering how long HM has reigned, I'm sure the ''palace'' has to be prepared for all kinds of situations and decisions.


If I were Charles, tbh, I would prefer the most controversial decisions to be made while HM is on the throne. Her popularity is huge, so she can weather the controversies better than him. When he is King, I'm not so sure he'll be able to count with the good will of the people as much.
Reply With Quote
  #1292  
Old 04-20-2021, 02:50 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by janet14 View Post
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.
I am not seeing the connection between the insistence on male rulers, etc. and the number of working royals who are required; could you explain?


Quote:
Originally Posted by janet14 View Post
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.
Naturally there are differences between monarchies and republics as a class, but the argument was about population size and that is an issue that both monarchies and republics must take into account.


Quote:
Originally Posted by janet14 View Post
And, no, as we say periodically, there has never been an official statement that he wants to slim down the monarchy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by janet14 View Post
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.
I was responding to your comment "there has never been an official statement that he wants to slim down the monarchy": I don't think any newspapers or royal forums are asserting that the Prince of Wales has made an official statement of that kind. It is clear that you believe without an official statement there is no evidence of his wishes, but that is not what newspapers or other forum members are claiming.


ETA: I will respond to Mbruno's post regarding titles of queens consort in the threads for the respective monarchies.
Reply With Quote
  #1293  
Old 04-20-2021, 03:04 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post

Naturally there are differences between monarchies and republics as a class, but the argument was about population size and that is an issue that both monarchies and republics must take into account.

I think the main difference is that President of the Republic doesn't normally take up the kind of patronages that Royal Families do and is not involved with the same broad spectrum of social organizations, at least not in the republics that have an executive president.


Sometimes the First Lady does some of the social and philanthropic work that royals do, but, again, not on the same scale, I think. The President himself concentrates more on his state and constitutional role, which, in some countries, actually includes running the government, being the head of the Armed Forces and directing foreign policy.
Reply With Quote
  #1294  
Old 04-20-2021, 03:18 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by janet14 View Post

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.
There have been no official announcements about the possibility of slimming down the monarchy but I think Harry and Meghan pretty much confirmed it is being discussed when they complained that Archie and his sister may not be HRHs.
Reply With Quote
  #1295  
Old 04-20-2021, 03:19 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: São Paulo, Brazil
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post

Given that Head of the Commonwealth is merely a symbolic or ceremonial position, it makes sense, for historical reasons, that he or she should be the same person who occupies the British throne since a present or former connection to the British Crown is what (most) Commonwealth countries have in common and what brought them together in the first place.

I agree with that, but considering they have to VOTE to select a new Head of the Commonwealth it means one day the title can go to whoever they want. To settle this, imo, they should could officially declare the title as honorary (pretty much like the King of Spain in the Ibero- American forum) and also remove the ''voting'' part, establishing that every English monarch is automatically honorary Head of the Commonwealth.
Reply With Quote
  #1296  
Old 04-20-2021, 03:20 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I think the main difference is that President of the Republic doesn't normally take up the kind of patronages that Royal Families do and is not involved with the same broad spectrum of social organizations, at least not in the republics that have an executive president.

Sometimes the First Lady does some of the social and philanthropic work that royals do, but, again, not on the same scale, I think.
That is probably true, but the population normally is not protesting at this state of affairs.


Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
There have been no official announcements about the possibility of slimming down the monarchy but I think Harry and Meghan pretty much confirmed it is being discussed when they complained that Archie and his sister may not be HRHs.
janet14 was referring to slimming down the number of working royals, not the number of HRHs.
Reply With Quote
  #1297  
Old 04-20-2021, 03:23 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
That is probably true, but the population normally is not protesting at this state of affairs.




janet14 was referring to slimming down the number of working royals, not the number of HRHs.
I should have been more clear: In my mind, reducing the number of HRHs naturally leads to fewer working royals.
Reply With Quote
  #1298  
Old 04-20-2021, 04:05 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
Believe me, I know how unpopular Charles is, sigh (sorry, it frustrates me).

You’re probably right, and that’s fine. I just resent the idea that what is really a personal feud between brothers (H and C as well, but that’s not sexy) could ever bring down the monarchy. This is the kind of thing people will lap up, and it’s the furthest thing from the truth. You spoke the truths, and Anna should know that.
I'm sorry, but what do you mean by "not sexy"?
Reply With Quote
  #1299  
Old 04-20-2021, 04:09 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyDrx View Post
I'm sorry, but what do you mean by "not sexy"?
Meaning, all we hear about is W and H, H and W, even at/around the funeral. Harry's relationship with Charles is at least as important, but the media kept focusing on the brothers.

In this case, there's a rift between the brothers......but that's what it is, a rift. It's not comparable in the slightest to the Abdication crisis, yet both Lacey and now Anna P. have written books portending DOOM DOOM DOOM for the monarchy if William and Harry don't repair their rift. W and H sell, that's what I mean by "sexy".
Reply With Quote
  #1300  
Old 04-20-2021, 04:24 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
Meaning, all we hear about is W and H, H and W, even at/around the funeral. Harry's relationship with Charles is at least as important, but the media kept focusing on the brothers.

In this case, there's a rift between the brothers......but that's what it is, a rift. It's not comparable in the slightest to the Abdication crisis, yet both Lacey and now Anna P. have written books portending DOOM DOOM DOOM for the monarchy if William and Harry don't repair their rift. W and H sell, that's what I mean by "sexy".
Ah, I see.
__________________

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 asian birth britannia british british royal family buckingham palace camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels customs daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family tree fashion and style gemstones genetics george vi harry and meghan henry viii highgrove history 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 medical meghan markle monarchy mongolia names plantinum jubilee pless politics portugal prince harry queen victoria st edward sussex suthida thai royal family tradition unfinished portrait united states wales welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:54 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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