The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #581  
Old 01-23-2008, 04:23 PM
jcbcode99's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Richmond Area, United States
Posts: 1,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
I would also point out BellaFay that Camilla IS the Princess of Wales. It's nothing to do with the Queen.
Hear Hear! Some day I think I will just start refering to her as the PoW and see the reactions.
__________________

__________________
Janet

"We make a living by what we do; we make a life by what we give" Winston Churchill
  #582  
Old 01-23-2008, 04:26 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,861
Oh I do. And nobody dares pull me up on it. They know they shall get a thick ear if they do.
__________________

__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
  #583  
Old 01-23-2008, 04:35 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimebear View Post
What was the childish behavior?
I think the behaviour being referred to is her nonattendance at the Prince of Wales's wedding, which was apparently taken to mean that she disapproved. Since the wedding was originally going to take place at Windsor Castle, when presumably HM would have shown up, I think her absence has other reasons than disapproving of the marriage.
  #584  
Old 01-23-2008, 04:41 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by BellaFay View Post
I think part of the problem has arisen because the title 'Prince of Wales' was invested on Prince Charles by the Queen. So the title of 'Princess of Wales' is also in the hands of the Queen.
Only to the extent that she can choose to create her eldest son Prince of Wales or choose not to. Since she's chosen to, the Princess of Wales title automatically becomes part of the list of titles carried by the Prince of Wales's wife from the moment of his marriage. Camilla is choosing to use a title that doesn't have such close associations with Diana as the Princess of Wales title, but she's still the Princess of Wales.
  #585  
Old 01-23-2008, 04:46 PM
tinkerbell1948's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Country SA, Australia
Posts: 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
Oh I do. And nobody dares pull me up on it. They know they shall get a thick ear if they do.
__________________
Tink
  #586  
Old 01-23-2008, 05:54 PM
ToytownZara's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Camberley, United Kingdom
Posts: 30
Would she actually be crowned Queen as long as Andrew Parker-Bowles is still living? Isn't this some sort of CoE nightmare - or quagmire?

I don't care what she's called, really (well, I do but I'm not dragging that all out again) - but as long as APB is alive, that seems to cause a problem.

Long live the Queen! Charles may have one heck of a wait, anyway, if the longevity of his grandmother is indicative of anything - and the Queen is certainly in better health than her sister was. All of this may be moot for more reasons than one!
  #587  
Old 01-23-2008, 06:03 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,861
APB being alive causes no problem. Ancient history. Everyones moved on. He has no bearing on her life now or in the future.
__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
  #588  
Old 01-23-2008, 06:45 PM
CasiraghiTrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burbank, United States
Posts: 6,398
Actually, APB is an interesting question. Because, wasn't there a problem when Diana was still alive? Some people said Charles couldn't remarry & be divorced king is the first wife was still living? Wouldn't the same problem apply for (Queen?) Camilla?

If the answer is negative, just say so, a simple 'no'. No insults, no sarcasm, please. I'm just curious. If it's a stupid question, so be it.
  #589  
Old 01-23-2008, 07:09 PM
tinkerbell1948's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Country SA, Australia
Posts: 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio View Post
Actually, APB is an interesting question. Because, wasn't there a problem when Diana was still alive? Some people said Charles couldn't remarry & be divorced king is the first wife was still living? Wouldn't the same problem apply for (Queen?) Camilla?

If the answer is negative, just say so, a simple 'no'. No insults, no sarcasm, please. I'm just curious. If it's a stupid question, so be it.
I have actually wondered the same thing , isn't that why it says on her section of the offical Royal website website that she is expected to be known as HRH the Princess Consort?

The Royal Family > TRH The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall > Background


I should imagine that this was all thrashed out before Charles and Camilla married (not sure though)
__________________
Tink
  #590  
Old 01-23-2008, 08:25 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
I don't see why Andrew Parker-Bowles's existence should make a difference to what Camilla is called when Charles becomes King. If the existence of an ex-husband wasn't enough to stop them getting married, I don't see why it should make a difference to her status on Charles's accession.
  #591  
Old 01-24-2008, 12:24 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio View Post
Some people said Charles couldn't remarry & be divorced king is the first wife was still living?
They were wrong. There is no law preventing the accession to the throne of a King who has been remarried while the first wife is still alive.
  #592  
Old 01-24-2008, 10:29 AM
ToytownZara's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Camberley, United Kingdom
Posts: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
I don't see why Andrew Parker-Bowles's existence should make a difference to what Camilla is called when Charles becomes King. If the existence of an ex-husband wasn't enough to stop them getting married, I don't see why it should make a difference to her status on Charles's accession.
On that, we agree - but what about the religious aspects? And does the Archbishop of Canterbury get any say in it, if her ex WAS still living at the time of coronation?

Could she be CALLED Queen without being CROWNED as such - or am I just a dithering idiot who needs major revision on the subject of royalty?

I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just a bit confused.
  #593  
Old 01-24-2008, 01:34 PM
kimebear's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Albany, United States
Posts: 1,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
I think the behaviour being referred to is her nonattendance at the Prince of Wales's wedding, which was apparently taken to mean that she disapproved. Since the wedding was originally going to take place at Windsor Castle, when presumably HM would have shown up, I think her absence has other reasons than disapproving of the marriage.
Ah. I had thought that her absence was a result of the venue, not the marriage. After all she came to the service at the chapel and apparently gave them a lovely reception. I dont think she was particularly pleased with her son's choice (no arrows from the Camilla fans please) for reasons solely having to do with the bad publicity their pre-marriage relationship gave the royal family.

But, the proof is in the pudding, or in this case, the jewels. I think Camilla's true acceptance came with the dazzling jewels she has been sporting as of late. Camilla would wear the Delhi Durbar and the Boucheron Honeycomb tiaras only over Her Majesty's dead body if there was real animosity. Camilla will most assuredly take the title of Queen upon Charles' ascension after several years of a successful marriage when there is less likely to be public anger towards it.
  #594  
Old 01-24-2008, 01:36 PM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToytownZara View Post
On that, we agree - but what about the religious aspects? And does the Archbishop of Canterbury get any say in it, if her ex WAS still living at the time of coronation?

Could she be CALLED Queen without being CROWNED as such - or am I just a dithering idiot who needs major revision on the subject of royalty?

I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just a bit confused.
As Camilla's first husband was a Catholic, I guess fot the CoE Charles is a widower and Camilla never was married properly. At least that's how Catholics deal with the case when the first spouse was not a catholic and the first marriage did not take place in the Catholic church according to the wedding sacrament, then the second marriage is the real one.

But if now a document shows up by Andrew Parker Bowles saying that the queen is going to abdicate next year and that Charles will bump him off, I start yelling!
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
  #595  
Old 01-24-2008, 03:28 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Merseyside, United Kingdom
Posts: 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimebear View Post
What was the childish behavior?
According to the media press pack on Prince Charles's website for the wedding there was meant to be a 5 minute photo-call for the couple and their families on the steps of St George's Chapel when they emerged after the service. This never happened, because: a) the Queen walked off the steps and into her waiting car, leaving Prince Charles ushering to an empty space beside him; and b) someone ordered the ushers inside the chapel to close the doors in front of the Shand family, thus preventing them from emerging onto the steps until after the Queen & Prince Philip had departed. The former can be confirmed by looking at an unedited video of the ceremony and the latter by Tom P-B's joke about it on US tv recently.
The 'Greville' jewels which Camilla frequently wears - the 5 strand necklace & engagement ring - were given to the Queen Mother in 1942 by a close friend. King George VI thought them so extravagant that he forbade her to wear them in public during & after the war years. They first appeared in public onlyafter the King's death, in 1960 for the State Visit of President De Gaulle. I, therefore, doubt that she would have considered them part of the Royal Collection of jewels. Certainly, according to people I know in the Royal Collection the Queen Mother didn't consider her paintings collection to belong to the Queen and therefore bequeathed it to Prince Charles, knowing that he would then allow the Royal Collection to display it. So I would think that it was quite possible that this particular set of jewels - particularly the engagement ring - was bequeathed to Prince Charles directly. NB It was recently revealed in the BRitish press that the Queen went to great lengths to prevent the Queen Mother's will from ever being revealed in public - so none of us in the Forum will probably live to know who the Queen Mother bequeathed the jewels to.
  #596  
Old 01-24-2008, 03:36 PM
jcbcode99's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Richmond Area, United States
Posts: 1,979
I thought that the Queen Mother left all jewels to her daughter in a sovereign to sovereign exchange that would exempt the pieces from taxation.
__________________
Janet

"We make a living by what we do; we make a life by what we give" Winston Churchill
  #597  
Old 01-24-2008, 04:54 PM
kimebear's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Albany, United States
Posts: 1,380
That's what I thought too. I had always believed that (a) Charles was very close to his grandmother (more so that to his own mother) and (b) the Queen Mother highly disapproved of Camilla and any idea that Charles had about marrying her. So I would be suprised if the jewels actually went directly to Charles since he would have had to pay a duty on them and that, if they had, he would dishonor his grandmother's feelings about Camilla by letting her wear the jewels without his mother's consent. Like I said earlier, I don't think the queen was especially happy about the marriage, but if she had wanted to, she could have made it impossible for them to marry without taking away his place in the line of succession. For a variety of reasons, their wedding day was probably not a happy one for the queen and perhaps her stellar sense of propriety was lessened on the occasion, but she and Camilla seem to get along nowadays and that's all that matters.
  #598  
Old 01-24-2008, 06:16 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToytownZara View Post
Could she be CALLED Queen without being CROWNED as such - or am I just a dithering idiot who needs major revision on the subject of royalty?
She very well could be. No coronation is necessary to affirm her title. The wife of the King becomes the Queen immediately upon the death of the previous monarch.
  #599  
Old 01-25-2008, 04:15 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimebear View Post
For a variety of reasons, their wedding day was probably not a happy one for the queen and perhaps her stellar sense of propriety was lessened on the occasion, but she and Camilla seem to get along nowadays and that's all that matters.
As all mothers, the queen had to learn that at some point her children are grown-ups who make their own decisions and their own faults. I found an interesting page about the documents that were exchanged by the involved bodies of the government when it came to the queen's wish to bestow the title of a prince of the UK on her husband (which had never been done before to a person not born into the British Royal family). I think after prince Charles and Camilla had decided to marry they informed the queen and she started the procedure to see how it could work when it comes to the constitution.

In any case Charles could have asked parliament for their agreement if the queen had decided to say no and if parliament did not agree, he could have gone to the European Court of human rights to have the Royal marriages Act changed so he could marry Camilla without loosing his place in the succession. I am convinced he did not want to do that but he could have done it. So he had quite some arguments against all the queen could say and somehow I doubt she said so much about this matter. She only took care IMHo that the procedure was conform with the laws and that was that.
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
  #600  
Old 01-25-2008, 02:24 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Merseyside, United Kingdom
Posts: 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimebear View Post
That's what I thought too. I had always believed that (a) Charles was very close to his grandmother (more so that to his own mother) and (b) the Queen Mother highly disapproved of Camilla and any idea that Charles had about marrying her. So I would be suprised if the jewels actually went directly to Charles since he would have had to pay a duty on them and that, if they had, he would dishonor his grandmother's feelings about Camilla by letting her wear the jewels without his mother's consent. Like I said earlier, I don't think the queen was especially happy about the marriage, but if she had wanted to, she could have made it impossible for them to marry without taking away his place in the line of succession. For a variety of reasons, their wedding day was probably not a happy one for the queen and perhaps her stellar sense of propriety was lessened on the occasion, but she and Camilla seem to get along nowadays and that's all that matters.
If the Queen Mother was so anti Charles and Camilla as a couple why did she allows Prince Charles to entertain Camilla at Birkhall Lodge (her own property) during her lifetime. IMO I don't think we'll ever find out the QM's true opinion of the couple until William Shawcross's official biography of the QM gets published - if that ever happens of course! According to Richard Kay the text of the biography was handed to the Queen's private secretary for royal vetting and approval in the first week of September 2007. According to Penguin Publishers' website it was due for publication in October 2007. It hasn't been heard of since September and no new publication date has been given. Jonathan Dimbleby's 820page tome took less than 2 months to vet and we know that that had pieces edited out of it at Buckingham Palace's request, because Dimbleby admitted as much in 1994. So heaven knows what is being edited out of the QM biography during the 4 months its already been with the Queen.
__________________

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 archie mountbatten-windsor asia birth britain britannia british british royal family buckingham palace camilla's family camilla parker bowles carolin china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing clarence house colorblindness crown jewels customs dresses duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family life fashion and style gemstones genetics gradenigo gustaf vi adolf harry and meghan hello! henry viii history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs jack brooksbank japan japan history kensington palace king edward vii lili mountbatten-windsor list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists monarchy names nara period plantinum jubilee pless politics prince harry queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen louise queen victoria royal ancestry solomon j solomon spanish royal family st edward sussex suthida swedish queen taiwan tradition united states of america wales welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:33 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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