The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #3081  
Old 03-19-2017, 02:37 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,908
I'm not sure everyone understands, but common law is the law. Just because there's no statute governing a consorts title, doesn't mean Charles is free to do what he wants in this regard.

Britain has a constitution and not even the King is allowed to just ignore it.

As Queen Victoria said when talking about Prince Albert:

'It is a strange omission in our Constitution that while the wife of a King has the highest rank and dignity in the realm after her husband assigned to her by law, the husband of a Queen regnant is entirely ignored by the law.'



The title 'Princess Consort' doesn't exist in Britain. The highest rank and dignity in the realm after HM The King is HM The Queen.
__________________

  #3082  
Old 03-19-2017, 03:37 PM
muriel's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Why would the government do that ? The only titles and styles that are regulated by an act of Parliament in the UK are the titles and style of the sovereign properly. The titles of other members of the Royal Family have long been left to the discretion of the sovereign and I don't see why the government would want to get involved.
It would be very much with the agreement of Charles, so that the issue of Princess Consort is buried once and for all.
__________________

  #3083  
Old 03-19-2017, 03:54 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 12,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by hel View Post
As DT points out, there is a reasonable chance that Charles will be ascending the throne as a twice-widowed man, as sad as that is. So I personally can't get that invested in the outcome of a decision that may not even be necessary.
Reasonable chance of him being twice widowed when he is king

Seems highly unlikely. If the queen is like her mum, we could have ten years. So in ten years Camilla dies, Charles remarries, and his third wife must also die in your time frame. Is Charles the male version of a black widow?

Charles is not a widower. He and Diana were divorced before she died. You are only a widower if your wife dies when married. So for him to be twice widowed Camilla would need to die soon so she can marry and have a third wife die,

It's also highly unlikely he will be widowed once. Things can always happen. But Camilla is a healthy 69 year old. Save some tragedy, there is no reason to believe she won't outlive her ninety year old mother in law.
  #3084  
Old 03-19-2017, 04:01 PM
hel hel is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Kitchener, Canada
Posts: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
Reasonable chance of him being twice widowed when he is king

Seems highly unlikely. If the queen is like her mum, we could have ten years. So in ten years Camilla dies, Charles remarries, and his third wife must also die in your time frame. Is Charles the male version of a black widow?

Charles is not a widower. He and Diana were divorced before she died. You are only a widower if your wife dies when married. So for him to be twice widowed Camilla would need to die soon so she can marry and have a third wife die,

It's also highly unlikely he will be widowed once. Things can always happen. But Camilla is a healthy 69 year old. Save some tragedy, there is no reason to believe she won't outlive her ninety year old mother in law.
I apologize for not speaking precisely and regret deeply leaving an opening for pedantry and mockery to be the reply to my post. With that said, in the eyes of the church, his first marriage was only sundered upon Diana's death, no? In 1997, when she passed, the CoE still didn't allow remarriage in church.
  #3085  
Old 03-19-2017, 04:08 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 12,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
Agree. But I also think that Camilla genuinely has no interest in the matter. She is clearly in this to support Charles, not to grandstand a 'perk'. I find her admirable. Charles could not have found a more suitable second wife imo. He has been very lucky in that.

In the end, what eventuates (how Camilla is called) will be what Charles decides, and Camilla is comfortable with. I could see them deciding not to have her be called Queen (though the tabloids will do whatever they want) just as she chooses not to be called The Princess of Wales. Camilla deferring to Diana, the first wife of what will then be a king and mother of a future king, seems reasonable and not a slight against Camilla. Quite the reverse, it speaks volumes regarding Camilla.

However it goes, I think we should want Camilla to be happy and comfortable.
Why would she even have to defer to Diana? Even if Diana was alive, she was never going to be queen. Camilla is certainly not the first second wife of a king. Was it disrespect to her stepchildren, for Louise Mountbatten to be queen Louise of Sweden? I a, sorry but saying she can't have her husband's title as it is disrespectful to Diana when Charles dies, she would simply be dowager queen and not queen mother.

They need to send a clear message. Camilla is his wife and consort. If she is princess consort, then that should bevthevonesbe if all kings wives to come. Otherwise it simply seems a snub.

Camilla isn't called princess of Wales out of respect to Diana, but that doesn't hold water here. Diana was never queen, never would be.
  #3086  
Old 03-19-2017, 04:09 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,202
For law the Prince of Wales was a divorced man, for Church he was a widower. I assume it was like that.
  #3087  
Old 03-19-2017, 04:12 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 12,817
No. There is a difference between the church recognizing divorces, and allowing remarriages. The COE may not have allowed a remarriage in 1997, but they did recognize civil divorces as legal. So even in the eyes of the church. Charles was not a widower. He was legally divorced.
  #3088  
Old 03-19-2017, 04:17 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 2,949
The real issue...

...IMO...is not Camilla nor Diana nor tradition regarding titles. It's Charles, and whether he means what he says.

There will be roughly a year between accession and coronation. Camilla can be referred to, and introduced as, the Princess Consort during that year. If there is a general and widespread outcry in her favor, then Charles can do as he wishes, and he can't be called a liar.
__________________
"If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will.”

Abraham Lincoln
  #3089  
Old 03-19-2017, 04:27 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,908
The accession is governed by common law. The instant the Queens dies, Charles becomes King and his wife becomes Queen. There is no grace period.

The only way that doesn't occur is if the government enacts legislation before the accession and lays down Camilla's title in statute as 'Princess Consort'
  #3090  
Old 03-19-2017, 04:40 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades CA, United States
Posts: 4,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
Why would she even have to defer to Diana?
I meant it in the most benign of ways. Not in any sense that Camilla is of lesser status, only that I really don't think Camilla is of the the character that wants to be party to all this controversy, and for her sake alone I said what I did. Who would need such at that age? Especially when it's not a driving force of the character? Enough is enough. Let her be, I say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
Diana was never queen, never would be.
True enough given how it all went down. As others who know have mentioned, Camilla will be Queen, but she can be referenced any way Charles decides (without being accused of lying, because times and conditions do change, after all). I would suspect he will consult with Camilla when he makes his decision (though maybe not). It will be sad if Diana's shadow continues to haunt the monarchy after so many decades. And referencing her as 'Princess Consort' will be a haunting, a daily reminder of that sad, disjointed time for all of them, and the country. Why do it?
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
  #3091  
Old 03-19-2017, 08:12 PM
Daenerys Targaryen's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: The Blue Ocean, United States
Posts: 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spheno View Post
I agree with you. It's enough to read this forum's threads from 2004 or 2005. They are heavy moderated but still you can feel that many royal watchers hated Camilla.
Now people's feelings has completely changed.
Not everyone's feelings have changed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
well Daenerys, you may believe that Charles never tells a lie.. I don't. I thnk it was spin, and perhaps it would have been more sensible to just say nothing about her future title.. but they did. If he was telling the truth then, why is it that botht he and Camilla have said when asked about the title "we will have to see"? why not a firm "yes of course, in due course she will be Princess Consort just as we said years ago."
I do not believe he never tells a lie. In fact he might well have been lying in order to get his way. I am hoping that he was sincere. Although, perhaps that is too much to expect on this particular subject, but I would hope that he isnt, as we say, a 'lying dog'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
I have to disagree. The world was very different in early 2005. There were grave questions around the potential acceptance of Camilla as a senior member of the BRF. This was a necessary sop to keep things moving. 12 years on, she is well accepted as Charles' consort, and an active and senior member of the BRF. That we are having this conversation only proves how accepted she is, and when the time comes, the "intention" to make her Princess Consort will be quietly dismissed.
And this is exactly the reason why some believe he was, in fact, lying his butt off.
  #3092  
Old 03-19-2017, 08:42 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades CA, United States
Posts: 4,420
No one knows the future. There was no way for Charles to know that 'the times' (regarding Camilla) would change so dramatically once she became his wife and became an active royal. It had been 8 years since Diana's death with no abate so why would he think it would abate? He likely meant what he said, of course he did. Why doubt it? Why care to doubt it?

As it turns out marrying Camilla was a game-changer of a kind he could not have anticipated (no one could have, hence why he said what he said and likely meant it). The social climate has changed (except for the few) as people have become more aware of the Wales' situation back then on the part of both parties, and have come to see Camilla in real life terms. For those few who can't let go of a very personal past for two people, Charles will always be 'the problem' (without possibility of redemption) and so they will see him through that lens.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
  #3093  
Old 03-19-2017, 09:52 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 12,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
No one knows the future. There was no way for Charles to know that 'the times' (regarding Camilla) would change so dramatically once she became his wife and became an active royal. It had been 8 years since Diana's death with no abate so why would he think it would abate? He likely meant what he said, of course he did. Why doubt it? Why care to doubt it?

As it turns out marrying Camilla was a game-changer of a kind he could not have anticipated (no one could have, hence why he said what he said and likely meant it). The social climate has changed (except for the few) as people have become more aware of the Wales' situation back then on the part of both parties, and have come to see Camilla in real life terms. For those few who can't let go of a very personal past for two people, Charles will always be 'the problem' (without possibility of redemption) and so they will see him through that lens.
Camilla has been a wonderful princess of Wales. And she will be a wonderful queen consort. She supports her husband and her charities with passion. She has more than earned the title of the kings wife.


It's not a simple matter of her going by something else. Then would actually have to pass something. With duchess if Cornwall they didn't have to make a new title, she just used one of the lesser. But there are no lesser titles of King. His old titles belong to William. To call her princess, they will have to make her one in her own right. And if they do, then in fairness it needs to be permanent. It needs to apply to all queen consorts,
  #3094  
Old 03-19-2017, 10:21 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades CA, United States
Posts: 4,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
Camilla has been a wonderful princess of Wales. And she will be a wonderful queen consort. She supports her husband and her charities with passion. She has more than earned the title of the kings wife.
I agree. In fact, Camilla models exquisitely what it means to support a partner and still maintain one's own identity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
It's not a simple matter of her going by something else. Then would actually have to pass something. With duchess if Cornwall they didn't have to make a new title, she just used one of the lesser. But there are no lesser titles of King. His old titles belong to William. To call her princess, they will have to make her one in her own right. And if they do, then in fairness it needs to be permanent. It needs to apply to all queen consorts,
Pretty much sums it up, I think.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
  #3095  
Old 03-19-2017, 11:50 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spheno View Post
I agree with you. It's enough to read this forum's threads from 2004 or 2005. They are heavy moderated but still you can feel that many royal watchers hated Camilla.
Now people's feelings has completely changed.


No not everyone has
  #3096  
Old 03-20-2017, 06:46 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Clarence House has already refuted that article as nonsense, In any case, it is extremely unlikely that Charles would use his accession speech, i.e. his first act as king, to talk about Camilla's title.

The official position remains that Camilla is intended to be known as HRH The Princess Consort and I don't see any credible evidence that Charles has backed down from that statement, or that he can realistically change it after sticking with it for so many years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
I'm not sure everyone understands, but common law is the law. Just because there's no statute governing a consorts title, doesn't mean Charles is free to do what he wants in this regard.

Britain has a constitution and not even the King is allowed to just ignore it.

As Queen Victoria said when talking about Prince Albert:

'It is a strange omission in our Constitution that while the wife of a King has the highest rank and dignity in the realm after her husband assigned to her by law, the husband of a Queen regnant is entirely ignored by the law.'

The title 'Princess Consort' doesn't exist in Britain. The highest rank and dignity in the realm after HM The King is HM The Queen.
I do not believe that Charles intended to deceive anyone anymore than I believe he lied. It was another time and no one could have imagined the way the world has changed and the UK and Commonwealth have changed as well.

We stand on the edge of a world in flux, socio-political and economic change has been dramatic, war after war have driven the refugees of Africa into the countries of the EEU and UK is leading the exit from a European Union in the name of nationalism. All Europe is seeing the rise of nationalism and xenophobia. Countries want to be seen as strong and important. That being the case, I do believe that should HM pass within the next five to ten years, the UK Government are not going to be in the mood to shoot themselves in the foot by enacting a punitive change to the constitution diminishing history.

No, when the Head of State of a foreign country visits the UK, they will be greeted by all the pomp and circumstance they can muster and be met by the King and Queen.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
  #3097  
Old 03-20-2017, 08:45 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,228
Please note that posts containing speculative ideas concerning Diana, Princess of Wales have been edited. Please let's get back on topic - this thread is about the Monarchy under Charles, not the titles of monarch's spouses or how they will be referred to in the future.
__________________
JACK
  #3098  
Old 03-29-2017, 02:45 AM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,153
That article is worthless. Charles doesn't have any personal property right now. He will inherit Sandringham and Balmoral from his mother. However, he doesn't keep the property owned by the Duchy of Cornwall like Highgrove. Windsor, BP, Clarence House, KP are owned by the State. All the residents of KP aren't going to move in BP. Total Garbage
  #3099  
Old 03-29-2017, 03:06 AM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 12,817
Yes, he simply holds interest in possession over Cornwall. Meaning while he controls the estate, with a board, and the income of the estate is his, he can't sell anything on the estate for profit. And when he becomes king, the estate as a whole passes to the new duke, William, including high grove. I never did quite understand why he didn't buy high grove in his own name with the income. I guess perhaps among other things, to avoid inheritance laws eventually.

Balmoral and Sandringham are the only two properties he has any say in. And if there was any real plan to make Kensington a museum, these new offices, the money spent on Wll and Kate's apartment and on Ivy would have been pointless.
  #3100  
Old 03-29-2017, 04:18 AM
sthreats's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: midwest, United States
Posts: 433
The Monarchy under Charles

Can he buy Highgrove from the Duchy-before he is king. It seems to be very important to him.
__________________

Closed Thread

Tags
british, camilla, charles iii, charles of wales, coronation, crown jewels, duchess of cornwall, legacy, prince charles, prince of wales, queen camilla, titles, william v


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
Monarchies & Republics: Future and Benefits marian Royalty Past, Present, and Future 552 04-07-2021 03:53 PM
The Monarchy after Elizabeth II ysbel British Royals 523 05-22-2018 02:06 PM
The Monarchy in Greece Fireweaver The Royal Family of Greece 310 04-09-2018 01:37 PM
The Monarchy And The Media Alexandria Royal House of Norway 12 04-08-2004 04:06 PM




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 02:46 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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