The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1041  
Old 10-11-2015, 07:34 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,908
Of course Camilla will be Queen but this was all handled in the worst possible way. I think it was part of Bolland's 'Operation Camilla Parker-Bowles' to make Camilla more acceptable as consort.

I have no issues with her becoming Queen as the marriage is legal but Charles should have just stated this from the beginning. Why he thought it was clever to give the public a 'Princess Consort option' is beyond me. Naturally by giving the public a 'choice' it went with princess consort.

To say Camilla is non-negotiable and then turn around and negotiate her titles and use semantics is unbecoming imo.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1042  
Old 10-11-2015, 07:57 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,310
I think it would be in poor taste for Camilla to be known as the Queen. Just like she is not referred to as the PoW...regardless of the technicality that she is.

I think Charles has behaved badly enough that he's just lucky he's not living 70 years ago because he would of gone the way of his great uncle.

But it appears you are stuck with Charles as the next monarch and he'll probably do a good enough job at it. But I hope I live long enough to see William on the throne. I think he will outdo his father on all levels.



LaRae
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1043  
Old 10-11-2015, 08:15 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,397
Quote:
I think it would be in poor taste for Camilla to be known as the Queen
Why ? Are second marriages somehow less in your mind than first marriages ? Do you find calling the second wives [of your acquaintance] 'Mrs' whatever the name is, a problem ? Do you consider that to be in 'poor taste' ?
Reply With Quote
  #1044  
Old 10-11-2015, 08:18 AM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,153
Camilla and The Public

If not having affairs, is the litmus test for Kingship that a lot of Kings would never been King. Numerous mistresses and illegitimate children of Kings are littered through history. Charles's behavior is mild when you compare him to Edward VII. Even George VI, slept with married women prior to getting married, so he wasn't perfect either. The ideal of Victoria and Albert that the royal family is this sort of perfect idea family isn't something they can live up to.

In modern Britain, people get divorced, they have affairs, sex before marriage, etc. All things that we see in the Royal family.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #1045  
Old 10-11-2015, 08:22 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
If not having affairs, is the litmus test for Kingship that a lot of Kings would never been King. Numerous mistresses and illegitimate children of Kings are littered through history. Charles's behavior is mild when you compare him to Edward VII. Even George VI, slept with married women prior to getting married, so he wasn't perfect either. The ideal of Victoria and Albert that the royal family is this sort of perfect idea family isn't something they can live up to.

In modern Britain, people get divorced, they have affairs, sex before marriage, etc. All things that we see in the Royal family.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Indeed, to parafrase a favourite quote once uttered by an MP in the Dutch Parliament during a debate about the royal family: "My ladies and gentlemen, we are discussing the royal family, not the Holy Family!"

Reply With Quote
  #1046  
Old 10-11-2015, 02:14 PM
Lee-Z's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Heerlen, Netherlands
Posts: 3,260
Imo at some point the unequality between a male consort of the monarch and female consort of the monarch will be removed and just like a male consort is "prince", the female consort will be "princess" (in the netherlands a similar discussion was started when Maxima became queen).
Maybe not for a couple of generations in the future, but on the other hand: why not start with King Charles and Princess Camilla, and make a step towards gender-equality...
__________________
Wisdom begins in wonder - Socrates
Reply With Quote
  #1047  
Old 10-11-2015, 02:22 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee-Z View Post
Imo at some point the unequality between a male consort of the monarch and female consort of the monarch will be removed and just like a male consort is "prince", the female consort will be "princess" (in the netherlands a similar discussion was started when Maxima became queen).
Maybe not for a couple of generations in the future, but on the other hand: why not start with King Charles and Princess Camilla, and make a step towards gender-equality...

An alternative approach to gender equality would be to call the husband of a reigning queen the king consort, just like the wife of a reigning king is the queen consort.
Reply With Quote
  #1048  
Old 10-11-2015, 02:24 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades CA, United States
Posts: 4,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
An alternative approach to gender equality would be to call the husband of a reigning queen the king consort, just like the wife of a reigning king is the queen consort.
Makes far more sense.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #1049  
Old 10-11-2015, 10:04 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,731
To me, the titles Princess Consort and King Consort would be going against the grain as far as British tradition goes.

With King Consort, it would be like getting used to redefining the face cards in a deck of playing cards. A King always is higher than a Queen. Its been that way for centuries. Even with the Consort part, it denotes that the King is every bit as much as a monarch as the Queen Regnant is.

To have a King and a Princess Consort goes against equality in my book. The wife of a King is a Queen. Princess is a lesser title with the styling of Her Royal Highness rather than Her Majesty, The Queen Consort. To put Camilla into this position would actually be making her less equal in the marriage. As wives take their titles and styles from their husband, as King, the only titles Camilla can use of her husband's would be Queen Consort. Charles would have to create her anything else.

We'll just have to wait and see what happens when the time comes.
__________________
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
  #1050  
Old 10-13-2015, 08:11 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,378
I believe Prince Henri, consort of Queen Margrethe of Denmark, would dearly love that King Consort title!

A summing up by the Independent on a DM survey taken earlier this year.

Over half of UK public do not want Camilla Duchess of Cornwall to be queen | News | The Independent
Reply With Quote
  #1051  
Old 10-13-2015, 08:21 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
Why ? Are second marriages somehow less in your mind than first marriages ? Do you find calling the second wives [of your acquaintance] 'Mrs' whatever the name is, a problem ? Do you consider that to be in 'poor taste' ?

If they were the future defender of the Faith and head of the Church of England and in the same circumstance of Charles and Camilla...yes.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #1052  
Old 10-13-2015, 09:14 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
If they were the future defender of the Faith and head of the Church of England and in the same circumstance of Charles and Camilla...yes.





LaRae

*coughHenryVIIIcough*

*coughthechurchwasformedbecauseamanwantedadivorcecough*

*coughtherehavebeennofewerthantwoRomanCatholicswhoheldthispositioncough*

*coughandMANYmenwhohadmistressescough*

*coughincludingtheguywhosefirstdivorcebroughtthechurchintoexistencecough*
Reply With Quote
  #1053  
Old 10-13-2015, 09:52 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
*coughHenryVIIIcough*

*coughthechurchwasformedbecauseamanwantedadivorcecough*

*coughtherehavebeennofewerthantwoRomanCatholicswhoheldthispositioncough*

*coughandMANYmenwhohadmistressescough*

*coughincludingtheguywhosefirstdivorcebroughtthechurchintoexistencecough*

Yes I'm well aware of history...aren't they supposed to have improved over the past several hundred years? Unless you are saying Charles isn't so bad because he hasn't killed two of his wives so far?


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #1054  
Old 10-13-2015, 10:02 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades CA, United States
Posts: 4,420
Looks like you have to choose the right interpretation of a poll. This one says Camilla is fine in the polls, but another paper using the same poll results asserts the opposite. Can't be both ways. Might there be some 'cookin' of the polls'?

LINK: Camilla Parker Bowles’ Title As ‘Queen Consort’ When Prince Charles Becomes King Is Fine With Most Brits
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #1055  
Old 10-13-2015, 10:21 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
Yes I'm well aware of history...aren't they supposed to have improved over the past several hundred years? Unless you are saying Charles isn't so bad because he hasn't killed two of his wives so far?


LaRae
The point that you seem to fail to get, though is that there is no moral requirement for the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. There is ABSOLUTELY NO MORAL REQUIREMENT. There isn't even much of a religious one for that matter.

In order to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England you have to be the king or queen of the United Kingdom. That's it. In order to be the the king or queen of the United Kingdom you have to be the senior most legitimate descendant of Sophia of Hanover and not a Catholic.

That means that in order to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England you don't have to be a moral, upstanding person. You don't even have to be an Anglican. You just have to have the right bloodline and not be a Catholic. Charles could convert to Islam tomorrow and would still be eligible to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith.

As for this morallity of monarchs since Henry VIII... actually, yes things have progressed since then and Charles being divorced is actually a sign of that. First of all, Charles' reasons for divorce were actually considerably more founded than Henry's - Charles' marriage dissolved because he and his wife were not compatible and really didn't love each other so he and his wife separated. It wasn't done because his wife failed to produce a male heir, or because she had affairs (which she did). His one affair wasn't dismissed as completely acceptable while hers were a crime. Charles' divorce affected him and his wife, not the whole realm because he didn't have the authority (or need) to change everyone's religion just to get a divorce. He didn't need to make up a reason to divorce his wife, nor did he get to send his wife into exile, or prison, or execute her. He also didn't make it so that his wife could never be with anyone else.

What's more is that we as a society largely don't believe that a couple should be condemned simply because they were married previously or because they were unable to make that first marriage work. It's hard to do when you consider that 50% of marriages end in divorce and in the Charles/Diana and Camilla/Andrew marriages everyone committed adultery.
Reply With Quote
  #1056  
Old 10-13-2015, 11:37 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,310
I'm aware that there is no requirement to be moral or even religious.

No one is talking about anyone needing to be condemned and just because 50 percent of marriages end in divorce doesn't mean it's ok. Just because one person commits adultery doesn't mean it's ok.

What is the point of the farce then...if one doesn't even has to be moral or even part of the CoE why bother to begin with. It doesn't mean anything and before long neither will the monarchy.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #1057  
Old 10-14-2015, 01:48 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
The point that you seem to fail to get, though is that there is no moral requirement for the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. There is ABSOLUTELY NO MORAL REQUIREMENT. There isn't even much of a religious one for that matter.
Totally agree. Many of the monarchs who have been Supreme Governor of the Church of England have been far from 'moral and upright' people - e.g. Charles II and his many mistresses, James I and VI who was probably a bit both ways, George IV and Edward VII all come to mind and amazingly they were all quite decent monarchs and Supreme Governors.

Quote:
In order to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England you have to be the king or queen of the United Kingdom. That's it. In order to be the the king or queen of the United Kingdom you have to be the senior most legitimate descendant of Sophia of Hanover and not a Catholic.
Totally true

Quote:
That means that in order to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England you don't have to be a moral, upstanding person. You don't even have to be an Anglican. You just have to have the right bloodline and not be a Catholic. Charles could convert to Islam tomorrow and would still be eligible to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith.
NO to the bolded bit. You have to be a communicant member of the Anglican Church. This is spelt out in the Act of Settlement. Lutherans were regarded as being 'in communion' with the CoE so didn't need to change denominations but the monarch must be a communicant member of the CoE. If Charles converted to Islam he would lose his place immediately as he would no longer be in communion with the CoE - he could convert to a range of protestant denominations and even Orthodox but he does have to be a non-Roman Catholic Christian.

Quote:
As for this morallity of monarchs since Henry VIII... actually, yes things have progressed since then and Charles being divorced is actually a sign of that. First of all, Charles' reasons for divorce were actually considerably more founded than Henry's - Charles' marriage dissolved because he and his wife were not compatible and really didn't love each other so he and his wife separated. It wasn't done because his wife failed to produce a male heir, or because she had affairs (which she did). His one affair wasn't dismissed as completely acceptable while hers were a crime. Charles' divorce affected him and his wife, not the whole realm because he didn't have the authority (or need) to change everyone's religion just to get a divorce. He didn't need to make up a reason to divorce his wife, nor did he get to send his wife into exile, or prison, or execute her. He also didn't make it so that his wife could never be with anyone else.
Earlier wives committing the crime Diana committed in having affairs were executed or locked away. She was simply divorced. We have progressed.

Quote:
What's more is that we as a society largely don't believe that a couple should be condemned simply because they were married previously or because they were unable to make that first marriage work. It's hard to do when you consider that 50% of marriages end in divorce and in the Charles/Diana and Camilla/Andrew marriages everyone committed adultery.
Sadly though the Diana fans only see this situation through their rose coloured glasses when it comes to Diana and Charles and Camilla will have to be condemned for ever as a result.
Reply With Quote
  #1058  
Old 10-14-2015, 03:39 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,731
One thing I have to believe is that should Charles' first marriage have taken place with them being an ordinary couple, they would have wasted no time in heading to divorce court. By the time things got really bad, they were both living separate lives in separate residences. It is at this point that both in the marriage are perhaps at their lowest and really need their close friends and family to support them.

Scandal wields a very black paintbrush and the portrait it paints never entirely goes away but we also have to remember that we're all outsiders looking in on the private lives of people being given very few insights from the actual people involved.

If people look at the here and now and how much happier of a person Charles has appeared to be since his marriage to Camilla, its not a far stretch of the imagination to realize that perhaps it was Camilla's close friendship, loyalty and support that enabled Charles to keep more on an even keel while all around him, things were falling apart. Slowly but surely by her actions and her interactions with the public, those that she meets come to believe that Camilla is a very warm, down to earth woman and there is much more to her than the public portrait that was painted of her many years ago.
__________________
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
  #1059  
Old 10-14-2015, 05:44 AM
Nice Nofret's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Posts: 695
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
I'm aware that there is no requirement to be moral or even religious.

No one is talking about anyone needing to be condemned and just because 50 percent of marriages end in divorce doesn't mean it's ok. Just because one person commits adultery doesn't mean it's ok.

What is the point of the farce then...if one doesn't even has to be moral or even part of the CoE why bother to begin with. It doesn't mean anything and before long neither will the monarchy.


LaRae
Why is it not ok if people divorce? Even Muslims and Jews are allowed to divorce :), even Roman Catholiks are allowed to divorce. Why do you think YOUR interpretation of what Christian believe is, is the only valid one? I can't see in anything Christ ever said, that he was against divorce... In the 10 commentmens is no mentioning of not divorcing

Why is it, that so many people are so obsessed with what other people do in bed? Why should it be, that the sexlive of consenting adults should be more important than anything else they do in life?

If people decide to have an open marriage - it is there choice und I'm ok with that ... it is not a concerne of mine.

And afaik in the whole western world state and religion are seperate from each other! So beeing the head of state has nothing to do with 'christian morals' at all; You just have to play by the legal rules of your country. And adultery is NOT a crime - even if it goes against your religious believes.
Reply With Quote
  #1060  
Old 10-14-2015, 08:52 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,228
It is time to move back on topic - this thread is about Camilla and the Public, not the moral or religious issues surrounding her husband's marriage, divorce or eligibility in becoming head of the Church of England. There are various other threads in which these things can be discussed.
__________________

__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
camilla, duchess of cornwall, public opinion


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





Popular Tags
american archie mountbatten-windsor asia baby names biography birth britain britannia 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 colorblindness commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii family life gemstones george vi gustaf vi adolf hello! henry viii hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume history hypothetical monarchs jack brooksbank japan jewellery kensington palace king edward vii książ castle lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchy mountbatten names nara period plantinum jubilee pless politics portugal prince charles of luxembourg prince harry princess eugenie queen louise solomon j solomon spanish royal family speech sussex taiwan thai royal family united states wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:34 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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