The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #241  
Old 09-05-2005, 01:34 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 704
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiaraprin
I don't like Camilla and Charles and never will. Their actions were the catalyst for the breakdown of the monarchy in the 1990's.
Of course. Only Charles and Camilla had an affair. Maybe someone shoudl send a note to James Hewitt that his affair with Diana never happened and that it's all been in his head.
And of course Diana's public whining sessions did nothing to improve the image of the monarchy either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiaraprin
Camilla has never said she was sorry for what she did.
Maybe Camilla was waiting to take a lead from Diana and waiting for Diana to say sorry to Julia Carling first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tiaraprin
Perhaps if she hadn't done what she had, Diana wouldn't have done what she did. Camilla sinned first.
Does "being first" count when it comes to sinning? Here I was raised to think that sinning was sinning. Period. So if my friend steals a chocolate bar first it won't matter if I steal one after her. I get it now.
.
__________________

  #242  
Old 09-05-2005, 01:36 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
Let's stop this, please. I know there's controversy over Camilla, and I think we're all fairly clear about which posters can't stand Camilla and can't stand Charles, but there's no need to derail every blessed thread with this argument.

Some people find the notion of Queen Camilla abhorrent; other people find the notion of wishing an early death on Charles abhorrent. People are just going to have to learn to live with the fact that others don't share their opinions, and to stop provoking needless arguments about it.

Elspeth

British Royals moderator
__________________

  #243  
Old 09-05-2005, 01:38 PM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genevieve
Of course. Only Charles and Camilla had an affair. Maybe someone shoudl send a note to James Hewitt that his affair with Diana never happened and that it's all been in his head.
And of course Diana's public whining sessions did nothing to improve the image of the monarchy either.
Maybe Camilla was waiting to take a lead from Diana and waiting for Diana to say sorry to Julia Carling first.
Does "being first" count when it comes to sinning? Here I was raised to think that sinning was sinning. Period. So if my friend steals a chocolate bar first it won't matter if I steal one after her. I get it now.
I will no longer rise to your bait. Go ahead and think what you like. You just wish to stir up trouble and bait the Diana loyalists.
  #244  
Old 09-05-2005, 01:50 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 704
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiaraprin
I will no longer rise to your bait. Go ahead and think what you like. You just wish to stir up trouble and bait the Diana loyalists.
Why do you jump to the conclusion that I am stirring up trouble and baiting the Diana loyalists? I have an opinon that is obviously very different than yours. Am I not allowed to have this opinon and share it just as you are allowed to share your love of Diana?

Did I click on the wrong link in my Favourites file? Have I landed at a Diana Fanatics only forum? Are those objective or even critical about Diana and her life not allowed to share their opinons anymore?

When I discuss Rania of Jordan's actions in the Jordanian forum no one there is telling me that I am stirring up trouble even though some people think Rania is not doing enough and others think she is doing just enough. We discuss it like adults. Is it because I've brought up some true points that the Diana loyalists don't want to admit to that I am being labelled a trouble maker?

You can choose to ignore my posts. That's fine with me. But don't say I'm stirring up trouble just because you don't like what you read. Sometimes the truth hurts and people can choose to believe what they want to.
  #245  
Old 09-05-2005, 01:56 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
AHEM!!! I said to STOP IT, you two.
  #246  
Old 09-05-2005, 08:23 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain
Just a thought.... If the Queen is the Duke of Lancaster does that mean Prince Philip is the Duchess?
LOL...the Crown is Duke of Lancaster, but the Sovereign is fount of honour and cannot be a peer since their dignity as King or Queen takes precedence over all other dignities of rank.

It is simply a style merged with the Crown, so there is no precedent for a spouse of the Sovereign to reflect anything but the rank and style either granted by letters patent (in the case of Prince Philip) or law (in the case of a female consort who automatically becomes Queen Consort).

Technically, as the fount of honour and source of all enoblement, I suppose it would be possible for the Sovereign to grant the style and title of "Duchess of Lancaster" to a female spouse who is not Queen Consort, but since Lancaster is not a separate dukedom in the peerage (it is a holding of the Crown alone), it would not be honourable to be granted a style lesser than Princess if Camilla cannot be Queen.
.
  #247  
Old 10-04-2005, 12:31 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Monterey, United States
Posts: 2,323
Lets just call what she is HRH Camilla, Princess of Wales (after all she is anyway) :) just MHO
  #248  
Old 10-04-2005, 02:15 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
When Charles is king, William will automatically become Duke of Cornwall, so Camilla can't use the title Duchess of Cornwall. The title Duchess of Lancaster would be available for her, though.
Ah I see someone else thought of that too. That was my thinking. :)

But there are difficulties I'm told. Why is it possible for Camilla to now be known as Duchess of Cornwall; yet as Queen it would not be possible for her to be known as Duchess of Lancaster?

How does the Lancaster title as a susidiary title for the monarch differ from the Cornwall title that is a subsidiary title for the Prince of Wales?

Or, as Warren says, is this opening up another can of worms?

edit: Below is britannica.com's explanation of the Duchy. I find it fascinating. It appears that the original Duke of Lancaster, John of Gaunt, married into the title rather than being created Duke by his father Edward III.

This prince, the fourth son of King Edward III and Queen Philippa, was born at Ghent (or Gaunt) in Flanders, in 1340. In his infancy, he was created Earl of Richmond and, by that title, admitted into the Order of the Garter upon the death of Thomas Holland, Earl of Kent, one of the original knights. In 1359, at Reading Abbey (Berks), he married Blanche, the younger of the two daughters and co-heirs of Henry, Duke of Lancaster, and upon the death of his father-in-law, in 1361, he was advanced to that Dukedom. He held also, in right of his wife, the Earldoms of Derby, Lincoln and Leicester, and the high office of Steward of England.

wikipedia.com's explanation

There were several Dukes of Lancaster in the 14th and early 15th Centuries. See also Duchy of Lancaster.

There were three creations of the Dukedom of Lancaster. The first Duke of Lancaster was Henry of Grosmont (c. 13061361), a great-grandson of Henry III; he was the 4th Earl of Lancaster before he was created the 1st Duke of Lancaster on March 6, 1351. His daughter Blanche married John of Gaunt, a son of King Edward III, and on November 13, 1362 John became the 1st Duke of Lancaster of the second creation. Upon John of Gaunt's death on February 4, 1399, the title passed to his son Henry Bolingbroke, Duke of Hereford, who became the 2nd Duke of Lancaster. Later that same year, Bolingbroke usurped the throne of England from King Richard II, ascending the throne as Henry IV. On November 10, 1399, the new king created his eldest son, Harry of Monmouth Duke of Lancaster. When Harry ascended the throne as Henry V in 1413, the title merged with the crown, with which it has remained ever since. The Duchy of Lancaster, however, continues to exist as a separate entity, one of only two Duchies in the United Kingdom.

It doesn't explain how the two duchies, Cornwall and Lancaster, are different though. So I'm still confused why Camilla can't be known as the Duchess of Lancaster upon Charles' accession.
  #249  
Old 10-04-2005, 05:10 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel
...

But there are difficulties I'm told. Why is it possible for Camilla to now be known as Duchess of Cornwall; yet as Queen it would not be possible for her to be known as Duchess of Lancaster?

How does the Lancaster title as a susidiary title for the monarch differ from the Cornwall title that is a subsidiary title for the Prince of Wales?

...
The Dukedom of Lancaster is a peerage just like any other British dukedom. The monarch is the fount of honour who creates peerages, and the Lord Chancellor wrote in the Buckhurst Peerage Case (1876) that 'the fountain and source of all dignities cannot hold a dignity from himself. The dignity... terminates, not by virtue of any provisions in its creation but from the absolute incapacity of the sovereign to hold a dignity.'

Thus, the sovereign cannot be at the same time a duke in his own kingdom. Any title that merges with the Crown 'disappears'. For example, George VI ceased to be the Duke of York in 1936--the title merged with the Crown upon his accession.
  #250  
Old 10-04-2005, 05:38 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,469
More questions!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mapple
Thus, the sovereign cannot be at the same time a duke in his own kingdom. Any title that merges with the Crown 'disappears'. For example, George VI ceased to be the Duke of York in 1936--the title merged with the Crown upon his accession.
Does this mean that although The Queen isn't the Duke of Lancaster because that dignity has merged with the Crown, she holds the Duchy of Lancaster? I thought that in Lancashire The Queen was referred to as 'The Duke of Lancaster'? Another point: the revenues of the Duchy don't flow to "the Crown" but to the Sovereign. This is very confusing!
.
  #251  
Old 10-04-2005, 06:48 AM
Margrethe II's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 917
The estates and jurisdiction known as the Duchy of Lancaster have belonged to the reigning Monarch as Duke of Lancaster since the year 1399.

It is still commonplace to hear the toast 'The Queen, the Duke of Lancaster' throughout the Duchy.

Indeed Warren. All financial benefit does infact go solely to Her Majesty the Queen and not the Crown.

"MII"
  #252  
Old 10-04-2005, 08:10 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren
Does this mean that although The Queen isn't the Duke of Lancaster because that dignity has merged with the Crown, she holds the Duchy of Lancaster?
Yes. It is her inherited property.

Quote:
I thought that in Lancashire The Queen was referred to as 'The Duke of Lancaster'?
To be precise, 'The Queen, The Duke of Lancaster'. It is a matter of tradition, not law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren
Another point: the revenues of the Duchy don't flow to "the Crown" but to the Sovereign. This is very confusing!
.
Yes. The Duchy of Lancaster is the personal property of the British monarch and not a part of the Crown Estate.
  #253  
Old 10-04-2005, 08:30 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren
Does this mean that although The Queen isn't the Duke of Lancaster because that dignity has merged with the Crown, she holds the Duchy of Lancaster? I thought that in Lancashire The Queen was referred to as 'The Duke of Lancaster'? Another point: the revenues of the Duchy don't flow to "the Crown" but to the Sovereign. This is very confusing!
.
The Crown is fount of honour and cannot hold any dignity other than Sovereign as King or Queen. However, the Sovereign is, by custom, styled in the duchy as "The Queen, the Duke of Lancaster" as it is an ancient holding.

There is nothing, per se, preventing a King from granting the style and title of Duchess of Lancaster to his wife. It has never been necessary since the wife of the King is Queen Consort. Even in the case of Camilla, assuming she becomes Princess Consort, the granting of a ducal style merged with the Crown would be pointless.
  #254  
Old 10-04-2005, 08:38 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,469
Thanks

Thanks Mapple and branchg.

Your knowledge and contributions are much appreciated.

:) W
  #255  
Old 10-04-2005, 08:45 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel
How does the Lancaster title as a susidiary title for the monarch differ from the Cornwall title that is a subsidiary title for the Prince of Wales?

Or, as Warren says, is this opening up another can of worms?

edit: Below is britannica.com's explanation of the Duchy. I find it fascinating.
It doesn't explain how the two duchies, Cornwall and Lancaster, are different though. So I'm still confused why Camilla can't be known as the Duchess of Lancaster upon Charles' accession.
The Dukedom of Cornwall is not a subsidiary title. It is automatically held by the Sovereign's eldest son and heir to the throne. The title "Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester" requires a new grant by the Sovereign once the title merges with the Crown (usually when the current holder assumes the throne).

For example, Charles is currently "HRH Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Chester". When he becomes King, William will automatically become "HRH the Duke of Cornwall" and "HRH the Prince William, Duke of Rothesay". At Charles' discretion, a new grant of "Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester" would be given to William as the new heir to the throne.

The Dukedom of Lancaster is a peerage that merged with the Crown centuries ago. The difference is the dukedom is a holding of the Crown alone, therefore, it can never be granted to anyone other than the Sovereign.
  #256  
Old 10-08-2005, 08:51 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,219
Henry VII was the leader of the House of Lancaster who won the Wars of the Roses over the House of York.

With regard to the monarch using the title Duke/Duchess of Lancaster I do think I remember reading the Queen Victoria used the title Duchess of Lancaster when travelling incognito through Europe on occasions.

The monarch's main personal income still comes from the Duchy of Lancaster estates which is another reason why people argue that the monarch is also the Duke of Lancaster. It is this income that provides her wealth while the Civil List is the cost of running the monarchy.

Should the monarchy be abolished the House of Windsor would still hold the estates of the Duchy of Lancster - unless the abolition was also to remove the rights of hereditary peerages to continue to hold their estates and to use their incomes for their personal gains. However the Civil List would be transferred to the running of the presidency or whatever was to replace the monarch as Head of State.
  #257  
Old 10-17-2005, 11:32 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrissy57
Should the monarchy be abolished the House of Windsor would still hold the estates of the Duchy of Lancster - unless the abolition was also to remove the rights of hereditary peerages to continue to hold their estates and to use their incomes for their personal gains. However the Civil List would be transferred to the running of the presidency or whatever was to replace the monarch as Head of State.
Interesting point. If Britian becomes a republic, they could follow Germany's lead and abolish all sovereign kingdoms in addition to the peerage. In that case, the Queen could become plain old "Elizabeth Mountbatten-Windsor, Duchess of Lancaster", similar to "Georg-Freidrich, Prince von Hohenzollern" is in Germany today.
  #258  
Old 10-27-2005, 05:13 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 16
She could also attempt to sue the government for all her estates back again. Or maybe just the 3bn pounds of their worth.

I believe the Greek Royal House attempted it when they were outsed.

Besides, the great house of Windsor has decades left in it yet.
  #259  
Old 10-27-2005, 05:15 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,861
Re:

Quote:
I believe the Greek Royal House attempted it when they were outsed
Thats a tricky one. Constantine never abdicated and he is still a King.
__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
  #260  
Old 10-27-2005, 05:28 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
Thats a tricky one. Constantine never abdicated and he is still a King.
But then again, it may have been the Italian Royal House.
I always mix them up.

__________________

Closed Thread

Tags
camilla, camilla parker bowles, duchess of cornwall, princess consort, queen consort, styles and titles


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
Victoria's Future Title? rop81 Crown Princess Victoria, Prince Daniel and Family 80 09-12-2021 08:00 PM
Will and should Camilla use the title of Queen when Charles becomes King? muriel The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 17 11-10-2011 10:20 AM
Crown Prince Hamzah relieved of his title: November 28, 2004 Amoula Current Events Archive 338 04-22-2005 09:28 AM




Popular Tags
america american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian birth britain britannia british royal family buckingham palace camilla camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house colorblindness commonwealth countries coronation daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex elizabeth ii family tree fashion and style gemstones genetics george vi gradenigo hello! henry viii highgrove history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs japan japanese imperial family jewellery king juan carlos książ castle liechtenstein list of rulers medical monarchist movements monarchists mongolia names nara period plantinum jubilee pless politics portugal prince harry queen elizabeth ii queen victoria royal ancestry solomon j solomon spanish royal family suthida thai royal family unfinished portrait united states united states of america wales welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:41 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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