The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1141  
Old 07-16-2017, 07:34 AM
Nico's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 2,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Verseau View Post
Because cheerleaders like Penny Junor write a book on the anniversary year of Diana's death. A book that drags the late princess through the mud to make her rival look sympathetic is why that 3-way marriage will not go away. Diana was wrong, but Junor's book made her look like a psychotic mess. I wouldn't be surprised if Junor's book, or its excerpts, impacted the poll.

Look at the comment section of the Hail Queen Camilla article in the DM. To say many don't agree the writer's opinion on the subject is an understatement.
I don't the think that the "comment section" of the DM is a reliable source really ...
Ii highly recommend you to read Junor'd book, you will be surprised (but maybe the Morton's book is more to your taste).
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1142  
Old 07-16-2017, 07:46 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,648
JMHO - -but no doubt in my mind that Charles' reign, when it comes, will be as wildly successful as has that of QEII. People just like to rattle cages with this type of poppycock. BTW, his reign as Prince of Wales has been so long that Charles has almost established himself as virtually "another court" -- not an antagonistic one, just a parallel one. I think that has been beneficial to the UK.

Once again, JMHO, but I just don't see the some level of enthusiasm from W.

The "dark" press likes to drum-up all types of stuff. Remember back to the early 80s when Charles and Diana were first married and everyone thought that they were the gold standard and the Queen was passe. Same thing today with W&K v. Charles (and Camilla) ... it's just filler copy.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1143  
Old 07-16-2017, 08:22 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nico View Post
I don't the think that the "comment section" of the DM is a reliable source really ...
Ii highly recommend you to read Junor'd book, you will be surprised (but maybe the Morton's book is more to your taste).
I actually believe that in order to get the most information on which to make up one's mind, its advisable to read all the sources available on the subject matter. There are boatloads of books out there and each one of them has different viewpoints and different information and sources. Morton's book, with the assistance of Diana will present a totally different view than Jonathan Dimbleby's biography of Charles for an example. Junor's written books on quite a few members of the royal family.

As for the Fail comments? Its my opinion that those that "comment" there go no further than tabloid articles for their information. Heck, most times the tabloids themselves can't get their information right and write what will stir up the "sheeple" readers. One glaring example would be to print Her Royal Highness, The Queen. Go figure.

Charles has been Prince of Wales since 1958 and virtually had to establish what his role as PoW was over the many decades he's been the heir apparent. He's had his ups and downs but for the most part, people are not familiar with his endeavors, his successes and what he still hopes to accomplish. Its easier to see the man as the tabloids paint him than to really do any research into who Charles, the man is.

The general public as a whole can tend to be a pretty fickle bunch of folks that more often than not paint a totally different picture of those in the limelight than what the people that have to put up with the limelight really are like.
__________________
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
  #1144  
Old 07-16-2017, 09:21 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,397
Soo 61% want a [long] dead Woman as Queen.. not only dead, but a Divorcee who had she fastened her seat belt that FATEFUL night would never have been Queen anyway..

This is why it is good that Public opinion is irrelevant in this matter, and why Camilla WILL be Charles' Queen when the time comes. Just as the lady was 'non-negotiable'in his life so it will be, when he is King...
Reply With Quote
  #1145  
Old 07-16-2017, 09:26 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,378
Why wasn't Charles's first wife, the woman who bore him two sons, 'non-negotiable' from the beginning?
Reply With Quote
  #1146  
Old 07-16-2017, 09:29 AM
duchessrachel's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Birmingham, United States
Posts: 1,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
But surely it also shows that a woman who has been dead for twenty years was and is still beloved by the British public. If she hadn't been and isn't, her name wouldn't come up. This survey shows that Charles's first marriage, its demise and the part Camilla played in it still lingers in the public memory.
It may have to reach a point where Prince William and Prince Harry have to let the word out that they want her to be called Queen. That will go a long way in smoothing out the issue.
Reply With Quote
  #1147  
Old 07-16-2017, 09:31 AM
Nico's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 2,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Why wasn't Charles's first wife, the woman who bore him two sons, 'non-negotiable' from the beginning?
Because it didn't work, it's as simple as that.
Reply With Quote
  #1148  
Old 07-16-2017, 09:32 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,397
Quote:
Why wasn't Charles's first wife, the woman who bore him two sons, 'non-negotiable' from the beginning?
For the numerous reasons re-hashed ENDLESSLY on this Forum as elsewhere..

Camilla will be the 'Kings Wife' and the title that goes with that position IS Queen...
Reply With Quote
  #1149  
Old 07-16-2017, 09:36 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 8,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by duchessrachel View Post
It may have to reach a point where Prince William and Prince Harry have to let the word out that they want her to be called Queen. That will go a long way in smoothing out the issue.
It would be American to make Prince William and Prince Henry issue a statement about Camilla's status. Why should they do it?
Reply With Quote
  #1150  
Old 07-16-2017, 09:42 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,397
Quote:
issue a statement
Nothing so formal is required.. Just 'When my Step-Mother is Queen' will do, dropped into a conversation overheard by journalists...
Reply With Quote
  #1151  
Old 07-16-2017, 09:55 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
For the numerous reasons re-hashed ENDLESSLY on this Forum as elsewhere..

Camilla will be the 'Kings Wife' and the title that goes with that position IS Queen...

For obvious reasons, it is distasteful to speculate about the Queen's future and I don't want to do that. However, just for the sake of argument, I believe that there is a non-neglible chance that Charles might actually become regent before he becomes king. Camilla would have in that scenario then the chance of proving herself as the regent's wife before being the king's wife.
Reply With Quote
  #1152  
Old 07-16-2017, 10:03 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,729
I think William, Harry and Kate already show in quite a few ways that they're supportive of not only their father, but also his wife. They greet each other warmly, its been said that William and Kate take the kids over to Clarence House for Sunday dinners when possible and they most definitely there to celebrate Camilla's 70th birthday.

There was animosity in the Spencer family when Johnnie married Raine but I've yet to see any signs that there is any animosity in the Prince of Wales' household. They all get along. They've all moved on from the drama of the past. They all have better things to do than keep alive negativities that surrounded the family years ago.

Another aspect that we're looking at too as far as Camilla not being styled as "Queen" is that should a change be made that denotes the wife as a king as a "Princess Consort", it will be something that is permanent and will not only apply to Camilla but all future consorts of the king in the future. It would then apply to Kate and to George's future wife. It would be a major change in the way the British monarchy is perceived and totally different from a history of titles that have survived for hundreds of years.

So, then is it possible really that "public opinion" should dictate on this matter? Camilla being "Princess Consort" as to not offend then a bit further down the line having the "public opinion" once again demanding that Kate should rightfully be William's Queen Consort? Big can of worms if you ask me and I'm not going fishing.
__________________
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
  #1153  
Old 07-16-2017, 10:04 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,397
She has ALREADY proved a very capable 'second Lady in the land', [FAR more balanced, and SANE than her predecessor in that role], so I REALLY cannot see what more she has to prove ?
Reply With Quote
  #1154  
Old 07-16-2017, 10:19 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
.

Another aspect that we're looking at too as far as Camilla not being styled as "Queen" is that should a change be made that denotes the wife as a king as a "Princess Consort", it will be something that is permanent and will not only apply to Camilla but all future consorts of the king in the future.

.
Not at all. Camilla alone could be easily stripped of the title of Queen by an act of Parliament that only affects her, as Wallis alone was stripped of the HRH style by George VI's LPs without affecting any other future wives of HRHs. In fact, I don't even think it is necessary to take the title from Camilla by special legislation; it suffices instead to issue LPs giving her another title, e.g. Princess Consort, which the Court would use then on a daily basis just as today she uses her title of Duchess of Cornwall rather than the title of Princess of Wales, which she technically also holds under common law. I don't know though how the matter of the HM vs HRH style would be handled.

As I mentioned before, there is a similar precedent in another country, namely Belgium, when Léopold III married Lilian Baels and she became HRH The Princess of Réthy (a title especially created for her) rather than HM The Queen. Some posters here claim that marriage was considered morganatic in Belgium, but I'm not sure that is correct as the three children of the marriage (half siblings of Kings Baudouin and Albert II) were/are princes or princesses of Belgium with the style HRH. The children of Lilian's daughters are not royal, but not because of the morganatic status of their grandparents' marriage, but rather because, under the current Belgian laws, as descendants of Léopold I in maternal line who do not descend simultaneously from Albert II, they are not in the line of succession and are not entitled to an HRH.

I know that UK is not Belgium, but the precedent should be noted.
Reply With Quote
  #1155  
Old 07-16-2017, 10:33 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,397
Quote:
Camilla alone could be easily stripped of the title of Queen by an act of Parliament that only affects her, as Wallis alone was stripped of the HRH style by George VI's LPs without affecting any other future wives of HRHs.
And why EXACTLY would the new King who has 'moved mountains' to have his beloved wife at his side allow such a thing ?
Is 'punishing' an 'adulteress' or Divorcee [for this can only be the motivation for such a 'demotion'] acceptable in this day and age, when 50 % of British marriages now end in Divorce? To single out one WOMAN [notice the gender] in this manner is beyond outrageous..
Reply With Quote
  #1156  
Old 07-16-2017, 10:42 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Not at all. Camilla alone could be easily stripped of the title of Queen by an act of Parliament that only affects her, as Wallis alone was stripped of the HRH style by George VI's LPs without affecting any other future wives of HRHs. In fact, I don't even think it is necessary to take the title from Camilla by special legislation; it suffices instead to issue LPs giving her another title, e.g. Princess Consort, which the Court would use then on a daily basis just as today she uses her title of Duchess of Cornwall rather than the title of Princess of Wales, which she technically also holds under common law. I don't know though how the matter of the HM vs HRH style would be handled.
Just to clarify, Wallis never had the HRH address to be stripped of. When George VI issued his letters patent in the case of David and Wallis, what he did was create David as the Duke of Windsor and *restored* David's HRH with the certain provisions to it.
__________________
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
  #1157  
Old 07-16-2017, 10:53 AM
Nico's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 2,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
As I mentioned before, there is a similar precedent in another country, namely Belgium, when Léopold III married Lilian Baels and she became HRH The Princess of Réthy (a title especially created for her) rather than HM The Queen. Some posters here claim that marriage was considered morganatic in Belgium, but I'm not sure that is correct as the three children of the marriage (half siblings of Kings Baudouin and Albert II) were/are princes or princesses of Belgium with the style HRH. The children of Lilian's daughters are not royal, but not because of the morganatic status of their grandparents' marriage, but rather because, under the current Belgian laws, as descendants of Léopold I in maternal line who do not descend simultaneously from Albert II, they are not in the line of succession and are not entitled to an HRH.

I know that UK is not Belgium, but the precedent should be noted.
Again, you are comparing oranges and apples.
Leopold and Lilian's children were indeed HRH, bot not seen as members of the Royal Family (and as such not in the order of succession). If you take a simple look at the Belgian royals website, you'll see that the princesses Esmeralda, Marie-Christine and Léa are not included.
In Lilan's case, her title "princess of Rethy, princess of Belgium" was a "fait accompli" from Leopold III, without any legal base and during a very special time in history in Belgium. At the end it was more simple to call the mariage "morganatic" because, in a way, it was (exclusion from the order of sucession) and it wasn't (still HRHs). Lilian suffered all her life from this legal loophole.

Camilla needs and deserves a legal title. Under the current law, she will be Queen Consort.
Reply With Quote
  #1158  
Old 07-16-2017, 11:02 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Just to clarify, Wallis never had the HRH address to be stripped of. When George VI issued his letters patent in the case of David and Wallis, what he did was create David as the Duke of Windsor and *restored* David's HRH with the certain provisions to it.

Osipi,


OK, I get your point, but my point was that the British and Canadian posters here often raise the issue that, under common law, a wife takes the rank and style of her husband. Applying that rule, Wallis would be an HRH if David was also an HRH. So, in that sense, George VI's LPs overrode common law without an special act of Parliament being necessary to do so. Couldn't that be done also in Camilla's case ?
Reply With Quote
  #1159  
Old 07-16-2017, 11:14 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nico View Post
Again, you are comparing oranges and apples.
Leopold and Lilian's children were indeed HRH, bot not seen as members of the Royal Family (and as such not in the order of succession). If you take a simple look at the Belgian royals website, you'll see that the princesses Esmeralda, Marie-Christine and Léa are not included.
In Lilan's case, her title "princess of Rethy, princess of Belgium" was a "fait accompli" from Leopold III, without any legal base and during a very special time in history in Belgium. At the end it was more simple to call the mariage "morganatic" because, in a way, it was (exclusion from the order of sucession) and it wasn't (still HRHs). Lilian suffered all her life from this legal loophole.
Nico,

Esmeralda and Marie-Christine would never be in the line of succession anyway, because, when they were born, women could not inherit the throne in Belgium and the 1991 amendment to the constitution didn't retroactively extend succession rights to female lines other than those who descended from Albert (namely Astrid and her children).

As for Alexandre, it is a controversial case. Some authors claim, like yourself, that he never had succession rights, which would have been unconstitutional as he was a legitimate male line descendant of Léopold I. Others, on the other hand, in my opinion correctly, argue that he had succession rights, but lost them when he married without King Baudouin's consent in violation of the constitution. In any case, since the prince is no longer alive and he diidn't have children, the question became academic.

The important point though is that Lilian not being called queen didn't affect Fabiola, Paola, or Mathilde, which was what I wanted to emphasize. BTW, there is no royal decree or constitutional provision in force today in Belgium that actually regulates the titles of the wife of the King of the Belgians. Legally, Mathilde's title is "Princess of Belgium", which she got in her own right by royal decree. She's called HM and Queen by courtesy only, while still using "Princess of Belgium" after "HM Queen Mathilde {Marie Christine Ghislaine comtesse d'Udekem d'Accoz)" in her long style. Máxima is in a similar situation, ie. her only legal titles are "Princess of the Netherlands" and "Princess of Orange-Nassau" and she is called"HM Queen Máxima, Princess of the Netherlands, Princess of Orange-Nassau" by courtesy only. Letizia is the only one among the "new queen consorts" who explicitly has by royal decree the title of "Queen" and the style Majesty (though not the title of "Queen of Spain") .
Reply With Quote
  #1160  
Old 07-16-2017, 11:32 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Osipi,


OK, I get your point, but my point was that the British and Canadian posters here often raise the issue that, under common law, a wife takes the rank and style of her husband. Applying that rule, Wallis would be an HRH if David was also an HRH. So, in that sense, George VI's LPs overrode common law without an special act of Parliament being necessary to do so. Couldn't that be done also in Camilla's case ?
Sure. It could happen. Charles could issue letters patent creating Camilla a Princess of the UK in her own right (like George VI did with Philip) and therefore she'd be known as The Princess Consort. The marriage would still be morganatic as far as common law goes with Camilla's title being lesser than her husband's. Its my understanding that to be called "Princess", Camilla would either have to be a princess in her own right or take the feminine style from her husband such as The Princess of Wales or The Duchess of Cornwall.

We have to remember too that the HRH we're discussing as far as David and Wallis goes isn't actually a title or a style. Its a form of address that denotes a person's closeness to the throne. George VI didn't override common law as far as the Duke and Duchess of Windsor but just set conditions on the form of address. David, as a son of a monarch was still entitled to the HRH but George VI took pains to denote that his wife and any children wouldn't be entitled to that sort of form of address.

At least that's how I understand it.
__________________

__________________
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
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
america archie mountbatten-windsor asian baby names baptism birth britannia british british royal family british royals camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing coronation crown jewels customs duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family tree fashion and style gemstones genetics george vi gradenigo gustaf vi adolf harry and meghan henry viii hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume highgrove history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs japan history king edward vii king juan carlos liechtenstein line of succession list of rulers luxembourg meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists mongolia mountbatten names pless politics prince harry princess eugenie queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen victoria royal ancestry royalty of taiwan st edward sussex suthida swedish queen tradition unfinished portrait united states of america wales welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:00 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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