The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #3201  
Old 12-13-2017, 11:41 AM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade View Post

It is sadly in SOME respects to close to a Bravo or E! show.
I disagree--not even close for the past 20 years.
__________________

  #3202  
Old 12-13-2017, 11:43 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade View Post
The Queen has been steadfast in her role. Charles...outspoken. His marriages had and have their challenges. The younger royals have grown up with a desire to be us but still be them.

I sometimes think in their goodhearted desire to be more open, William, Catherine and Harry have behaved along the lines of reality TV people, and not royals in the sense of one must not let the daylight in, so to speak.
We have to remember that this letting the daylight in thing started with the Queen. I do think there are improvements that the younger generation has made in terms of talking about issues that weren't talked about before. The younger ones have not made it into a reality television by any means. I would say the reality television aspect of the royal family started well before the actual reality television with the War of Waleses. Charles is hugely unpopular due to the stiffiness he gives off at times and also his marriages. However, one thing I don't think he gets enough credit for is the work he has done as Prince of Wales. They seem to be taking a backseat because people aren't as interested in the mundanes of issues rather than the drama that is the royals' personal life.

I think even during the Queen's reign, there has been criticisms of her and how she runs of the monarchy, but she has adapted to a certain extent and has been around for so long that people nowadays have a lot of deference for her.
__________________

  #3203  
Old 12-13-2017, 12:28 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades CA, United States
Posts: 4,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
We have to remember that this letting the daylight in thing started with the Queen.
Agree. It was the Queen in the late 1960's who began opening up the monarchy with that initial documentary. Charles continued to follow that lead with all the documentaries he allowed in the 1980's with his marriage to Diana. Even so, the openness still had a boundary. It was Diana who breached all boundaries and ran with an 'openness' with the media in a way the Queen (and Charles) never dreamed (I think we can safely say that). Wayyyy too much daylight was let in with Diana taking 'openness' to a full throttle extreme.

With William and Harry we now have a reverting to the privacy and closed aspect of the pre-documentaries days (so I would disagree with a previous poster on this). Would others agree? It is true that Harry exhibits more of his mother's tendency to use the media/public as a shoulder but I don't think the tabloid press coverage of William, Catherine and Harry (altogether) should be conflated with 'openness' by these three royals. If anything these three are far tighter with their privacy than Diana. JMO.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
  #3204  
Old 12-13-2017, 01:22 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
With William and Harry we now have a reverting to the privacy and closed aspect of the pre-documentaries days (so I would disagree with a previous poster on this). Would others agree? It is true that Harry exhibits more of his mother's tendency to use the media/public as a shoulder but I don't think the tabloid press coverage of William, Catherine and Harry (altogether) should be conflated with 'openness' by these three royals. If anything these three are far tighter with their privacy than Diana. JMO.
I don't think Harry necessarily used the public as a shoulder. He talked about the issues he's had with his mom's death only after he's dealt with it. And it wasn't done to whine or do a poor me tour, but rather highlight and issue that he wants to improve on. He only shared his struggles to tell others it is ok to admit having this problem and seek help. As for the statement about Meghan, I saw that as more pushing back on quite disgusting coverage of his personal life rather than opening up his personal life. I think if the press had just outed that they were dating, and the thinly veiled headlines didn't happen, he would've just gotten on with it.
  #3205  
Old 03-09-2018, 06:01 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,908
“Prince Charles and Camilla's new website has removed statements saying she will be known as Princess Consort when he becomes King”

Read more: Queen Camilla: Duchess of Cornwall poised to get title as Princess Consort plan is 'ditched'
  #3206  
Old 03-09-2018, 06:29 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,537
I was an avid Princess Diana fan but goodness...the woman has been dead for more than 20 years! I have recently started to warm up to Charles and Camilla, especially with their support of Harry and Meghan. It's time that this nonsense ends...Camilla should be called the Princess of Wales and be the future Queen. end of story.
  #3207  
Old 03-09-2018, 07:34 PM
rominet09's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: LIEGE, Belgium
Posts: 4,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terri Terri View Post
I was an avid Princess Diana fan but goodness...the woman has been dead for more than 20 years! I have recently started to warm up to Charles and Camilla, especially with their support of Harry and Meghan. It's time that this nonsense ends...Camilla should be called the Princess of Wales and be the future Queen. end of story.
I totally agree with you ! And I have always felt this !
  #3208  
Old 03-09-2018, 07:44 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 15,835
I think Camilla won over a lot of respect by not officially going by the title of Princess of Wales. She simply didn’t need to be addressed by that title. She very successfully carved out her own royal role under the title Duchess of Cornwall. A very smart move by a very smart cookie!!

By The Queen appointing the Duchess to Her Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy Council, I think it’s pretty obvious that Camilla is on her way to being Queen Consort.

The Mark Bolland campaign worked.
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
  #3209  
Old 03-10-2018, 12:53 PM
Madame Verseau's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Louisville, United States
Posts: 1,784
If you go by a recent poll there is still pushback by the public for Camilla to be queen consort. This news about the website looks like a trial balloon to test current attitudes, especially with Meghan and Harry on the scene. I wonder if all the stories of Camilla being a sounding board for Meghan and Kate for marrying into the BRF a PR effort to soften Camilla's image more?
  #3210  
Old 03-10-2018, 01:09 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: jersey shore, United States
Posts: 1,124
She should be Queen.
  #3211  
Old 03-10-2018, 01:17 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,778
I, for one, have always thought that as a married couple, when Charles becomes King, Camilla should be his Queen Consort. Its been the tradition of how things have been done for a very long time and to bring in the couple's private life and times and people's opinion on it just seems to be very wrong to me.

If the precedent is set with Camilla being Princess Consort (or anything other than Queen Consort), it would be something set into motion that would affect not only Camilla but also Kate and all future wives of Kings. To single out Camilla solely because "the public doesn't like her" is discriminatory and to me, persecuting a person for actions made in their private life.

I don't believe this will happen. It would rule out any woman in the future from being Queen Consort and, in that respect, tarnish the monarchy itself.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #3212  
Old 03-10-2018, 01:43 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
I, for one, have always thought that as a married couple, when Charles becomes King, Camilla should be his Queen Consort. Its been the tradition of how things have been done for a very long time and to bring in the couple's private life and times and people's opinion on it just seems to be very wrong to me.

If the precedent is set with Camilla being Princess Consort (or anything other than Queen Consort), it would be something set into motion that would affect not only Camilla but also Kate and all future wives of Kings. To single out Camilla solely because "the public doesn't like her" is discriminatory and to me, persecuting a person for actions made in their private life.

I don't believe this will happen. It would rule out any woman in the future from being Queen Consort and, in that respect, tarnish the monarchy itself.
I wonder if this reluctance/hesitation regarding the queen consort title might also have to do with the perceived gender inequity of the male version of the Camilla conumdrum so famously objected to by the late Danish Prince Consort Henrik i.e. why can't men be kings when they marry a Queen
  #3213  
Old 03-10-2018, 01:49 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: East Coast, United States
Posts: 113
I think the spouse - whether male or female - should always be a lessor title than the monarch. So, just like Philip is Prince (Consort), so too should Camilla (and Kate and George's wife) be Princess Consort. In a sense, this is more equal - to keep the spouse's styling/title the same whether the monarch is male or female. Maybe a compromise could be to have the spouse created a prince/princess in their own right. So - again, as with Prince Philip - Camilla would become Princess Camilla and Kate would be Princess Catherine.

I also think it has been Charles's plan all along to have her crowned queen, so I don't appreciate what, to me, has been his sneakiness/dishonesty/manipulation about "oh no, she'll be princess consort, not queen" and then the little trial balloon comments like "we'll see" when someone asked him (and her) years ago about whether Camilla will be queen. I feel like if it was his wish and/or intention from the start then he should have been honest and fought for her to get the title he wanted and just taken whatever lumps came along with people being upset about it.

I think, in the end, she'll be styled queen consort. I don't really care all that much, but I don't like Charles's lying about it from the start (since I do think this was his plan all along, as I stated above).


Gerry - the male consort can't be style king because king outranks queen and you can't have the spouse outranking the monarch. Hence my argument that it is more equitable for all spouses (regardless of gender of the monarch) to be prince/princess.
  #3214  
Old 03-10-2018, 02:00 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,778
I don't think Camilla's title when Charles is King has anything whatsoever to do with Prince Henrik's espousing he wanted to be king.

None of this title conundrum for Camilla would ever have come about if the War of the Wales wasn't such a public spectacle and the grand soap opera of the 80s and 90s. People took sides and declared camps and some of those people just cannot let that war go decades later.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #3215  
Old 03-10-2018, 02:06 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,908
The Princess Consort was a fugazy from the start.

The darn thing about is its a problem of Charles own making. Polls show Camilla is liked but shouldn’t be Queen. Well it was CH who gave the public a ‘b’ option.

We’ve never had Princess Consorts. It would be a complete fabrication.

Unbelievably it’s the tabloids that now have the moral authority.

They can say “aha you lied for 13 years”.

For the record she’ll be Queen and deserves it simply by right of marriage.
  #3216  
Old 03-10-2018, 02:18 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,310
The fact that the heir to the throne was allowed to marry a divorcee with a living husband ...you can forget about the rest of the objections. Doesn't make much difference about her title. Just like the PoW issue..she IS the PoW she just does't use the title.


LaRae
  #3217  
Old 03-10-2018, 03:19 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
I think it was a wise decision to have her be known as 'the Duchess of Cornwall' as the title 'Princess of Wales' was very much linked to Diana. However, Diana never was nor would have been if still alive Queen Diana, so I have never grasped why Camilla couldn't be known as queen.
  #3218  
Old 03-10-2018, 04:27 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terri Terri View Post
I was an avid Princess Diana fan but goodness...the woman has been dead for more than 20 years! I have recently started to warm up to Charles and Camilla, especially with their support of Harry and Meghan. It's time that this nonsense ends...Camilla should be called the Princess of Wales and be the future Queen. end of story.
It would be a huge PR mistake if Charles went back on his decade-old "intention"(as it used to be called on his website) and had Camilla crowned queen, when most polls show that is not what the British people want. It would only add to the pressure on Charles to abdicate in favor of William, which is already considerable, especially as he gets older and the Queen continues to reign.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Gudgeon View Post
I think the spouse - whether male or female - should always be a lessor title than the monarch. So, just like Philip is Prince (Consort), so too should Camilla (and Kate and George's wife) be Princess Consort. In a sense, this is more equal - to keep the spouse's styling/title the same whether the monarch is male or female. Maybe a compromise could be to have the spouse created a prince/princess in their own right. So - again, as with Prince Philip - Camilla would become Princess Camilla and Kate would be Princess Catherine.
Or you could have it the other way around, i.e. give the husband of the reigning queen the title of king and the style of Majesty, as it used to be the case in Portugal and Spain in the past, and even in the British Isles in the days of Mary I Tudor and Mary, Queen of Scots.
  #3219  
Old 03-10-2018, 04:39 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,778
On the other hand, if the public has that much sway over how the monarch's wife should be known as and the monarchy bows under the pressure to placate the public's sensibilities, its the first step in showing the public they really don't need a monarchy anymore.

When the statement was made of the intention, it was also at a time when Camilla had no clue of how she would adapt to royal life. It may have been Camilla, herself, that wanted to leave options open. Camilla has since grown into her role with grace and dignity and may feel comfortable even with being Charles' Queen Consort.

The main point though is that should things change and Camilla become the Princess Consort, the UK will never have a Queen Consort again. Its just not right to single out one person for a different title because of "popular opinion".
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #3220  
Old 03-10-2018, 04:52 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
On the other hand, if the public has that much sway over how the monarch's wife should be known as and the monarchy bows under the pressure to placate the public's sensibilities, its the first step in showing the public they really don't need a monarchy anymore.

When the statement was made of the intention, it was also at a time when Camilla had no clue of how she would adapt to royal life. It may have been Camilla, herself, that wanted to leave options open. Camilla has since grown into her role with grace and dignity and may feel comfortable even with being Charles' Queen Consort. .
Nice try, but he kept the "intention" on his website for 13 years, thus long after he got married and Camilla "adapted" to the role. I don't see how he cannot be accused of misleading the public if he backtracks now.

King Edward VIII gave in to public opinion when he was told marrying Wallis was not an option (for the record, at the time, he actually suggested a "princess consort" solution, which was turned down). One could have argued that, if public opinion can force a king to abdicate, so it can also overthrow the monarchy. That has been the case, however, in England since 1649 at least, so there is nothing new really. The monarchy always depends on popular support to survive and that is why Charles should be wise to keep his promises.
__________________

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
america american archie mountbatten-windsor asia birth britain britannia british british royal family buckingham palace camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing clarence house colorblindness crown jewels customs doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family life fashion and style gemstones genetics gradenigo harry and meghan hello! henry viii history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs japan japanese imperial family japan history kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos lili mountbatten-windsor list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists monarchy names nara period plantinum jubilee pless politics prince harry queen elizabeth ii queen victoria royal ancestry solomon j solomon spanish royal family st edward sussex suthida tradition unfinished portrait united states of america wales welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:03 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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