The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Closed Thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 12-06-2011, 07:31 AM
Heir Presumptive
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,937
Originally Posted by MARG View Post

IMO there is no popular move to change the status quo and a few nuts aren't going to trash hundreds of years of tradition.
I think so too. In addition I believe this whole "movement" is quite arrogant. The difference between a monarchy and a republic is that in the latter people may vote for their head of state (in one way or the other, there are direct and indirect ways to select a head of state) but in the first they don't - they have to accept the person they get according to the rules.In Britain the rule means that Charles is next. He will after the demise of his mother be king and his wife will be queen.

Not because of their personal suitability but because of the rule. So in order to be a proper citizen of a monarchy (or a proper newspaper that deals with real problems), you should accept the rule as long as the majority is not for changing the system. Otherwise it would mean to impose your minority opinion not only onto others, but on the government and the souverain. Quite arrogant, that!
Old 12-06-2011, 07:56 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Former Administrator
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,227
I really don't think there is a particular public mood about Camilla's title when Charles becomes king. It's a case of whose opinion is spread all over the news and thus who shouts loudest - and public opinion cannot be guaged by that anyway.
As things stand at the moment, Clarence House (or Buckingham Palace, I cannot remember which) stated at the time of the engagement that Camilla would be styled/titled/known as Princess Consort when Charles becomes king. Why they felt the need to announced such a thing in the first place does not seem ever to have been discussed. My personal opinion is that it was Camilla's request that she eventually use the princess consort title (in the same way that she wanted to use the Cornwall title), whether she wanted it announced I have no idea. But by announcing it, they have set an expectation that, if changed, would seem abit sly. I'm all for Camilla being queen one day, but if she chooses to go by the princess consort title I have no objection either.
Old 12-06-2011, 02:20 PM
Elly C's Avatar
Heir Apparent
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Kingsbridge, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,587
When I suggested that Charles should perhaps put his private desires second to the feeling of the country/commonwealth with regard to making Camilla Queen Consort, I made this remark because the monarchy rules by the consent of the people. If it proved to be very unpopular & potentially damaging for the monarchy if Camilla were to be given this title, Charles should imo accept this. Incidentally, I think it is possible to gauge public mood/response without having a referendum - but this wasn't my point. I was just commenting that unlike with his decision to marry Camilla, which is arguably a private matter, Charles has should consider there is more at stake than his own wishes.
Old 12-06-2011, 02:26 PM
HRHHermione's Avatar
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Boston, United States
Posts: 3,572
Originally Posted by Jacknch View Post
I really don't think there is a particular public mood about Camilla's title when Charles becomes king. It's a case of whose opinion is spread all over the news and thus who shouts loudest - and public opinion cannot be guaged by that anyway.
Agreed. I think this is much less of a big deal that people are making it out to be. I spoke to a gentleman recently who is a very big critic of Camilla's (I'm not, I'm actually a fan) and we had a conversation about this issue. He says that even though he doesn't care for her personally, she should be Queen because that's how the monarchy works. Basically, he says that Charles is likely to have a short reign just because of his age, and he's very much looking forward to William and Kate as King and Queen, and he doesn't want to see anything else damage the monarchy in that time period.

He thinks a long, contentious debate about whether Camilla should be known as Queen would be way more damaging than just quietly getting on with it, and I rather agree.
Old 12-06-2011, 02:36 PM
Daria_S's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: My own head, United States
Posts: 8,101
Originally Posted by HRHHermione View Post
He thinks a long, contentious debate about whether Camilla should be known as Queen would be way more damaging than just quietly getting on with it, and I rather agree.
Very well said. I'm in complete agreement here.
"My guiding principles in life are to be honest, genuine, thoughtful and caring".
~Prince William~

I'm not obsessed with royalty...I just think intensely about it.
Old 12-06-2011, 04:04 PM
Heir Apparent
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 3,206
As I recall, the announcement about Camilla's titles- DofC and PC-was made to keep a peaceful pleasant atmosphere around Charles' remarriage. Did they mean it or not?

Won't there be a period of months between the time of Charles' accession and the coronation?

It may be that an 80 year old Camilla will be quite beloved and many will call for her to be crowned alongside Charles.

It may be that there will be no demand for Queen Camilla.

I don't see how Charles can go back on his word without a popular outcry in favor of Camilla being known as Queen.
Old 12-06-2011, 04:11 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 14,032
The instant the Queen dies Charles becomes King and Camilla becomes Queen Consort.

For her to be called something different will require legislation to strip her of her title - the only one she would have at that time as the all the titles Charles currently holds will pass to William or cease to exist until recreated by Charles. They would have to have her legally back to Ms Camilla Mountbatten-Windsor - morganatic wife of the King and the only woman in Britain not to be able to legally take the femine form of her husband's title (something the government said in 1936 couldn't happen in Britain when Edward VIII suggested that idea as a solution to the Wallis situation).

Then Charles would have to issue LPs to take her back to HRH The Princess Consort.

All very messy and time consuming to satisfy the demands of a minority of the population who are very vocal while most won't care one way or the other.
Old 12-06-2011, 06:07 PM
Heir Apparent
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 3,206
I just wondered why they would have said that early on if it was so meaningless? I agree that the wife of the King is the Queen, but since an issue was made of it initially, I assumed that they would do as they said.
Old 12-06-2011, 06:22 PM
MARG's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 10,297
Well said Bertie. I tried being facetious to point out the messy situation that would eventuate upon the death of Queen Elizabeth if the vocal minority were allowed to dictate a dramatic change in the succession and it's subsequent deleterious effect on the monarchy.

Unfortunately it was taken seriously and when I pointed out that it was a poor joke that was taken as a personal insult.

This topic seems to be fraught with the danger of offending those with truly offensive ideas. They are allowed to voice them, we are accused of insulting them when we point out the obvious flaws.

The press seem to be mellowing in the way they talk about Camilla and her role as future Queen. Unfortunately the "she doesn't deserve to be Queen" brigade seem to find that unacceptable and restart the whole "let's have a vote" movement!
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Old 12-06-2011, 06:35 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 13,071

Closed for a moderator clean up.

Closed Thread

camilla, duchess of cornwall, popular, press, prince charles, prince of wales, tabloid press

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
Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles News 2: July-November 2003 Alexandria Current Events Archive 163 11-21-2003 04:52 PM
Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles News 1: October 2002-October 2003 Lorraine Current Events Archive 134 10-31-2003 10:31 AM

Popular Tags
abdullah ii america arcadie arcadie claret austria british british royal family caribbean caroline charles iii claret congo current events danish royal family duarte pio duchess of kent edward vii elizabeth ii emperor naruhito espana genealogy general news grace kelly grimaldi hamdan bin ahmed harry history identifying india introduction jewels jordan royal family king king charles king philippe king willem-alexander leopold ier louis mountbatten matrilineal monaco monarchy mountbatten need help official visit order of precedence portugal prince albert monaco princess of orange queen queen alexandra queen camilla queen elizabeth queen ena of spain queen margrethe ii queen mathilde queen maxima queen victoria republics restoration silk spain spanish history spanish royal family state visit switzerland tiaras visit william wine glass woven

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:02 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2023
Jelsoft Enterprises