Relationship of the Royal Family with The Duchess of Cornwall

[HMQueenElizabethII]

As The Duchess of Cornwall has become a member of the Royal Family for 3 months and had appeared together with other members of the Royal Family several times,so giving your opinion that how do you think of the relationship between other members of the Royal Family with the Duchess of Cornwall?

For me i'm still not sure about the Queen and the Duchess of Cornwall.Before the wedding we often thought that The Queen did not like the Duchess but now after the Wedding,the Queen already allows the Duchess to appear together with the Royal Family on official events like Trooping the Colour,the Order of the Garter,Royal Ascot or the recently 60th anniversary of the end of World War the Second.But it also might be that the Queen allows but it does not mean that she likes the Duchess.
I know that the Queen really loves Prince Charles much.And i think that Prince Charles insists the Queen to allow the Duchess to appear together with the Royal Family.

And i think everything can always happens even from the smallest things.At Trooping the Colour in June,The Duchess was 4 people far from the Queen.They are the Countess of Wessex,Prince Edward,Prince William and the Prince of Wales.
But at the recent 60th Anniversary of the end of World War the second,she was just 2 people far from the Queen,they are The Duke of York and Prince Harry.
It seems so many significant,i still do not really know.

"One crucial consolation for Charles is that his wife has at least been allowed to remain above the last commoner to marry into the Royal Family - the Countess of Wessex.

Charles does not enjoy a close or warm relationship with the wife of his youngest brother Prince Edward. He believes that the former PR girl Sophie Rhys-Jones's commercial activities - she ran her own company - made her far more of a potential threat to the image and future of the Royal Family than anything his own wife Camilla has been accused of. For her part, Camilla is said not to get on very well with Sophie. She was indignant to be placed opposite her in the same horse-drawn carriage at the Trooping ceremony when the precedence issue emerged."

From Daily Mail UK:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...70&in_a_source=

[Warren]

Camilla is said not to get on very well with Sophie. She was indignant to be placed opposite her in the same horse-drawn carriage at the Trooping ceremony when the precedence issue emerged.

I'd be careful placing too much credence on these sorts of newspaper reports. You have to ask "why would Camilla be indignant?" And whatever the outcome of the precedence issue, Camilla would hardly hold Sophie responsible - HM perhaps, but not the Countess of Wessex. The seating arrangements for the Royal carrriages is not something that would have been left to the last moment; as we know the planning for these things is generally meticulous.

It seems to me that the journalists are just trying to create or manufacture a "rivalry" between Camilla and Sophie in the hope they can turn it into a long-running "feud".
.

[Alexandria]

Originally Posted by HMQueenElizabethII

For me i'm still not sure about the Queen and the Duchess of Cornwall.Before the wedding we often thought that The Queen did not like the Duchess but now after the Wedding,the Queen already allows the Duchess to appear together with the Royal Family on official events like Trooping the Colour,the Order of the Garter,Royal Ascot or the recently 60th anniversary of the end of World War the Second.But it also might be that the Queen allows but it does not mean that she likes the Duchess.

Before Camilla's engagement to Charles, there would've been no reason for Camilla to appear alongside him at official events or to have made an appearance on the balcony. She had no official role in his life in connection to his work as the Prince of Wales. But now as the Duchess of Cornwall, Camilla represents the monarchy as any of the other members of the royal household do, such as Princess Anne, the Earl and Countess of Wessex, Princess Alexandra, etc.

As for the Queen and Camilla's personal relationship, in the 70s, Camilla and the Queen's social circles overlapped a fair amount as they were both into equestrian events and such related activity. I don't think they ever socialized extensively then but they certainly had many known acquantiances in common.

I'm sure the Queen does not like the actions of her own son and Camilla in carrying on an affair and dragging the monarchy through such a scandal. But I've heard from a variety of sources that as the Queen and Camilla's personalities are quite similar and they both share a great love of the country and horses, had it not been for the affair, Camilla and the Queen could've been very good friends.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by Warren

I'd be careful placing too much credence on these sorts of newspaper reports. You have to ask "why would Camilla be indignant?" And whatever the outcome of the precedence issue, Camilla would hardly hold Sophie responsible - HM perhaps, but not the Countess of Wessex. The seating arrangements for the Royal carrriages is not something that would have been left to the last moment; as we know the planning for these things is generally meticulous.

It seems to me that the journalists are just trying to create or manufacture a "rivalry" between Camilla and Sophie in the hope they can turn it into a long-running "feud".
.

I agree. The matter of Camilla's precedence and similar issues were all worked out and decided before she married Prince Charles. Camilla knew that by choosing to be known as Duchess of Cornwall, rather than Princess of Wales, she would have to take precedence after the princesses of the blood royal but before Sophie, Countess of Wessex.

I highly doubt Camilla has rivalries with anyone in the royal family at this point. Her main concern is being supportive of Charles and his duties.

[Georgia]

The media is desperate for there to be an issue between Camilla and Sophie just as they were desperate for conflict between Sophie and Diana. I have said this before but I'm quite sure that the royal family have had longer to get to know and used to the Duchess than we have. The Parker Bowles were always close to Princess Anne and her family, in fact I'm sure Andrew is godfather to one of her children. On top of that Glouster is only so big as is the world they all live in! I'm sure they have met and socialised together before.

On a different note, Sophie and Edward have conducted themselves in a perfect way of late. They have a happy relationship of 10yrs, marriage of 6 and a young daughter. They carry out hundreds of Royal engagments a year and promote a healthy and modernised view of our monarchy for the 20th century.

[MoonlightRhapsody]

Originally Posted by branchg

I agree. The matter of Camilla's precedence and similar issues were all worked out and decided before she married Prince Charles. Camilla knew that by choosing to be known as Duchess of Cornwall, rather than Princess of Wales, she would have to take precedence after the princesses of the blood royal but before Sophie, Countess of Wessex.

I highly doubt that her precedence over Sophie is due to the fact that she took the title of Duchess instead of Princess. I believe it was due to the personal views of the Queen and not from the title. On an interesting note, when Diana was married to Charles, she was second only to the Queen.

As for her relationship with the other royals, I heard somewhere that the Princess Royal may hold some animosity towards Camilla because Princess Anne was dating Andrew Parker-Bowles and Camilla took him and proceeded to marry him. I don't know how true this story is, though.

[branchg]

Camilla's precedence over Sophie is because she is the wife of the heir to the throne, not her style or title. Camilla takes precedence over all the current wives of the princes of the blood royal (Princess Michael of Kent, the Duchess of Kent, the Duchess of Gloucester).

Technically, Camilla is Princess of Wales and should take precedence directly after Her Majesty the Queen. However, it was agreed (again probably for sensitivity reasons) that since Camilla would be styled as Duchess of Cornwall, she would take precedence after the Princess Royal and Princess Alexandra.

[Georgia]

This is all well and good, nothing however takes away from the fact that Camilla is going to be Queen of England one day. Public opinion will change and she will be accepted eventually as Queen consort. Personally I don't think there will be anything wrong with that. I used to but I have changed my opinion over the last few months. Charles is obviously happier with Camilla being his wife.
Life is very short and after the terrorist attacks in London it should go to prove that no one knows what will happen one day to the next. People should grab any happiness that they can.

[Elspeth]

Technically, Camilla is Princess of Wales and should take precedence directly after Her Majesty the Queen. However, it was agreed (again probably for sensitivity reasons) that since Camilla would be styled as Duchess of Cornwall, she would take precedence after the Princess Royal and Princess Alexandra.

I really don't understand the logic behind this. On the one hand, women are supposed to take their husband's status when they marry and all the wives of princess are princesses on that basis, including Camilla, Sophie, Andrew's wife if he had one, and the Duchesses of Gloucester and Kent. Yet just because some of these princesses are called duchesses and countesses, they somehow fall lower in the order of precedence than ones who aren't?

If it's really true that women automatically take their husbands' status when they marry, there should be no difference between a princess who's a princess because she married a prince and a princess who's a princess by birth.

What did they do when Diana was alive and married to Charles? Did the order of precedence put her below Princess Alexandra? And if being called a princess is the operative factor, then Princess Michael of Kent should be up there after Princess Anne.

This doesn't begin to make sense.

[branchg]

There is a difference between official precedence as it applies to the royal family and the peerage of the UK and private precedence for the royal family, from what I've been told. In addition, the Sovereign may modify or change anyone's precedence, similar to granting titles and honours, as the fount of honour.

Officially, the order of precedence for the female members of the royal family more or less mirror your place (or your husband's) in the line of succession to the throne, regardless of how you are styled or titled.

Therefore, while married to Prince Charles, officially Diana was the third lady in the kingdom, taking precedence after Her Majesty the Queen and the Queen Mother. However, privately, her precedence was somewhat different. Diana came after Princess Margaret and Princess Anne, but before all other female royals. After the divorce, Diana continued to enjoy her precedence, both officially and privately, with the agreement of the Queen and Prince Charles, because she was the mother of a future king, despite the loss of her royal rank as HRH.

In general, princesses of the blood royal will always take precedence privately before a princess by marriage, even if that princess by marriage will be Queen Consort someday. It's just the way it works in the royal family.

[Australian]

I agree, the media is trying to make a rivalry between the Duchess and Countess when there might not be any rivalry in truth. Just like the media did with Mary and Alexandra of Denmark. There was most probably no rivalry between them but the media made a fake rivalry up.

[florawindsor]

yes, i think the media is making things up too. i read today in the newspaper that some paper claimed that Camilla ignored Sophie at trooping the colour, wanted Sophie to curtesy, blah blah blah.

[Elspeth]

Some of these papers will say anything if it helps sell copies. Pathetic.

[Georgia]

I don't think members of the royal family worry as much about cursteying to each other as the public and press do. Maybe I am wrong but I can't imagine Princess Anne ever cursteying to Diana or expecting her children to curtsey to Camilla now. I have seen Peter and Zara custsey to their grandmother and great grandmother in public but thats it.

[branchg]

You are right. Everyone curstsies to the Queen (and her mother when she was alive), but that's about it. No one would expect a curtsey today from another member of the family.

In the past, someone who is not HRH (Lady Sarah Chatto) would be expected to curtsey to HRH Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, according to royal protocol. In earlier reigns, these things were strictly followed, but the Queen did away with the practice during the 1960's.

The newspapers are just stirring up the pot with made-up nonsense.

[Reina]

I do think there is animosity b/t some members of the royal family and camilla. It seems that some ppl are willing to call the newspapers hog-wash when it is convenient and when it is not (like when they are talking badly about Diana), the newspapers can be seen as the truth. That is nonsense to me.

[Alexandria]

This is the topic of Larry King tonight (right now!) if anyone is interested.

British author Hugo Victor, a former Buckingham Palace spokesperson, and a People magazine reporter as well as someone who used to work for Diana are on the panel.

Here is the exact synopsis from CNN.com:

The Royals react to London's terror attacks. Plus, how they're getting along with Camilla.

[tiaraprin]

Geez, the press needs to back off of Sophie. Sophie just wants to live a peaceful life I think and isn't doing anything. Whatever her personal feelings are, she dare not show them to be anti-Camilla with Charles as direct heir, as was pointed to on Larry King Live tonight. The panel said Charles will not favor those who come out against Camilla. I pray nightly Her Majesty lives another 50 years!!!

I also heard Camilla got her coat of arms with a POW coronet in it. The law may be the law, but it still makes me want to vomit in disgust.

I was very happy and proud to see how well William did on his first official royal tour. Good Job William!!:) You are the hope of the future!! He definitely showed his mother's touch in New Zealand by crouching down to talk to the children and the elderly in wheelchairs. It was commented on Larry King that Princess Diana's emotional rapport with the people is something that is greatly missed. I think William will pick up where his Mum left off. I hope Harry assists him in bringing the human touch back to the monarchy.

They also talked about Charles and Camilla coming here to the USA. All the society people are going to be watching them. I think they are wasting time. But then again, that is what most of the American social elite do.

[Bubbette]

The American social elite spend far more time on charitable pursuits than the Euros, that's for sure!

[tiaraprin]

Originally Posted by Bubbette

The American social elite spend far more time on charitable pursuits than the Euros, that's for sure!

Possibly Bubbette, but it is just for show and personal acclaim, not out of selflessness!