The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #601  
Old 01-25-2008, 02:49 PM
milla Ca's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: N/A, Germany
Posts: 1,516
Im sure the Queen Mother always wanted the best for her favourite grandson Charles. So she liked Diana as long as she thought she was good for Charles ( and the monarchy ) and she began to dislike her when she saw that Charles was very unhappy with her and Diana tried to damage the monarchy ( with her interviews etc. )
Im also sure the Queen Mother had nothing against Camilla. I think she liked her and knows about her importance for Charles. But she had always her brother-in-law (Edward VIII ) and Wallis Simpson in her mind. And the worst word for her, i think, was abdication. So she always was afraid that Charles could one day marry the divorced Camilla and the result could be a abdication again.
__________________

__________________
We will all have to account for our actions to our children and grand-children, and if we dont get this right, how will they ever forgive us?
Prince Charles in a speech, 6th December 2006
  #602  
Old 01-25-2008, 03:17 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimebear View Post
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.
HM originally agreed to (and therefore supported the marriage), the use of Windsor for the civil ceremony. That doesn't sound like someone putting obstacles in the way. Camilla and Charles were probably a little nervous after the threats that had been made by the Diana circle but in the end the DC idiots didn't manage a big show and Charles and Camilla had a wonderful wedding.
HM was positively beaming, as she seems to have been ever since!

the QM supported Charles in every way that she could and I doubt we will every know the true amount of help she gave to Charles and Camilla. Charles and Camilla were stepping out in public together before the QM died, if she was so upset by this, she wouldn't have left Charles a brass razoo.
__________________

  #603  
Old 01-25-2008, 05:08 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,546
Is the Queen even able to choose for herself whether or not to sanction a marriage, or is that done only "on advice"?
  #604  
Old 01-25-2008, 11:29 PM
kimebear's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Albany, United States
Posts: 1,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
HM originally agreed to (and therefore supported the marriage), the use of Windsor for the civil ceremony. That doesn't sound like someone putting obstacles in the way. Camilla and Charles were probably a little nervous after the threats that had been made by the Diana circle but in the end the DC idiots didn't manage a big show and Charles and Camilla had a wonderful wedding.
HM was positively beaming, as she seems to have been ever since!

the QM supported Charles in every way that she could and I doubt we will every know the true amount of help she gave to Charles and Camilla. Charles and Camilla were stepping out in public together before the QM died, if she was so upset by this, she wouldn't have left Charles a brass razoo.
I wasn't trying to insinuate that it was Camilla herself that HM didn't care for. Just the past sense of scandal that was created. The queen is nothing, if not, duty first. I think it probably really bothered her that her heir's wedding (second or not) was not celebrated in a larger fashion. After all, the bride is most likely the next queen and the current queen might have wanted a larger affair for the wedding of the next monarchs without the shadow that was cast over it.
  #605  
Old 01-26-2008, 12:29 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
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.
Yes. Edward VIII was King from the moment of his accession to the moment of his abdication, even though he was never crowned. She wouldn't just be called Queen, she would be Queen.

The Archbishop could conceivably refuse to crown Charles and/or Camilla, but considering the morals of some of the previous monarchs who have been crowned with no problems, I can't see it happening, and I have a feeling it might backfire fairly nastily on the Church if it was seen that the Church was putting its foot down about who is and who isn't suitable to be Head of State. We're way beyond the days when the Church was that powerful.
  #606  
Old 01-26-2008, 09:52 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
Is the Queen even able to choose for herself whether or not to sanction a marriage, or is that done only "on advice"?
The Sovereign must take advice from The Prime Minister if the marriage is considered to be of importance to the State (i.e. the heir to the throne, his/her children, controversial with the public).

For marriages of other family members or distant relatives, it is not necessary.
  #607  
Old 01-29-2008, 11:45 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
I just found this interesting poll about the question if Camilla should become queen - with long term results:

Ipsos MORI: Monarchy Trends

While the figures are still not very pleasant, the tendency is!
__________________
'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.
  #608  
Old 01-29-2008, 02:48 PM
cde cde is offline
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Marina del rey, United States
Posts: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post
I just found this interesting poll about the question if Camilla should become queen - with long term results:

Ipsos MORI: Monarchy Trends

While the figures are still not very pleasant, the tendency is!
Well no one ever said convincing people Camilla should be Queen was a quick weekend project. Sigh
Still your right, the numbers are looking up. And that is the important thing.
  #609  
Old 01-29-2008, 05:43 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,861
See, I find the asking people pretty pointless as they've got no say in it anyway. She will be Queen and there's nothing anyone can do about it except the Almighty. Why bother with these useless polls?
__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
  #610  
Old 01-29-2008, 06:23 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
I find the asking people pretty pointless as they've got no say in it anyway.
If we, the people, have no part to play, then there would have been no need to propose an alternative now would there...

Directly? It is a decision which is to be made within the corridors of power and it is there the final word is said.

Indirectly? Abolsutely the people have a say. By the time Charles is King and if no greater majority had warmed to the idea, then The Prime Minister of the day, amongst others, would surely not neglect the show of public feeling. Not reading the public mood can be a very precarious business, as they well know.

If the greater majorty support Camilla as Queen Consort then full steam ahead. If in the event they do not, then there's really nothing standing in the way of creating her Princess Consort. I would be certain the appropriate executive papers would be drawn up, and passed, quite quickly.
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
  #611  
Old 01-29-2008, 06:39 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,861
But thats the point of monarchy - you get what you get and you don't get a say. If you want a say, you ditch the crown and get a President in where you can have a say. Anyone who thinks the monarchy is governed by committee is always going to be disappointed.
__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
  #612  
Old 01-29-2008, 06:43 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
The monarchy must have the consent of the people to survive. To ignore the wishes of the public is to deestablish it altogether and have a republic instead.

If the majority of Britons remain opposed, Parliament will act to remove Camilla's right to be HM The Queen, allowing Charles to issue letters patent creating her HRH The Princess Consort instead.
  #613  
Old 01-29-2008, 06:45 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Francisco, United States
Posts: 2,382
Camilla will be Queen Camilla. Charles will never settle for anything less. The public will only have any say in the issue if the public outcry and opinions are so strong that the future of the monarchy is in jeopardy.
When the current Queen dies and Charles ascends the throne the country will be in deep mourning and whatever he wants he will get.
  #614  
Old 01-29-2008, 06:47 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Royale View Post
If in the event they do not, then there's really nothing standing in the way of creating her Princess Consort. I would be certain the appropriate executive papers would be drawn up, and passed, quite quickly.
It would require an Act of Exclusion being passed by Parliament stating the wife of Charles III is denied the rank of Queen Consort instead holding whatever titles of honour and rank granted by The King as fount of honour.

The Crown Commonwealth nations would also have to consent to the change through each Governor-General as advised by their Prime Ministers.

So, it won't be so simple or easy.
  #615  
Old 01-29-2008, 06:48 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,978
A committee? Good heavens!! The Mob, Sam, get it right...

You receive what is extended, though this does not mean what is given cannot be altered. They know this. It is not an autocratic institution, but a constitutional democratic monarchy.
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
  #616  
Old 01-29-2008, 06:52 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by grevinnan View Post
Camilla will be Queen Camilla. Charles will never settle for anything less. The public will only have any say in the issue if the public outcry and opinions are so strong that the future of the monarchy is in jeopardy.
When the current Queen dies and Charles ascends the throne the country will be in deep mourning and whatever he wants he will get.
I'm not sure about that. If the outcry is that loud, Parliament may force him to abdicate in favor of William instead. There is no way any future Prime Minister is going to allow overwhelming public opinion to diminish the standing of the monarchy over the status of his wife.

There are definitely reservations about Charles and Camilla that will surface once The Queen passes on. That's why she is trying her best to showcase Camilla and Charles as time goes on in their future role, hoping the public will get used to the idea.

But it may or may not happen.
  #617  
Old 01-29-2008, 06:55 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
It would require an Act of Exclusion being passed by Parliament stating the wife of Charles III is denied the rank of Queen Consort instead holding whatever titles of honour and rank granted by The King as fount of honour.
Which would only be if they choose to go the legal route and not a simple "brute force" route. I really doubt that there would be that many people, especially in officialdom, who would refuse to call her "HRH the Princess Consort" if the Palace simply instructed people to call her that. It would be a bigger stretch than anything that's been done before (Princess Alice, Lady Louise, etc.), but I think they could pull it off and simply stick their heads in the sand. I don't want them to, but I think they could.
  #618  
Old 01-29-2008, 06:58 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
It would require an Act of Exclusion being passed by Parliament stating the wife of Charles III is denied the rank of Queen Consort instead holding whatever titles of honour and rank granted by The King as fount of honour.

The Crown Commonwealth nations would also have to consent to the change through each Governor-General as advised by their Prime Ministers.

So, it won't be so simple or easy.
Of this I'm aware, though I think some prefer to make it seem more arduous than what it really is, or shall I say, what it could be.

I don't see why any Governor General would veto such a move, let alone any Prime Minister. Having had Clarence House publically acknowledge that it is the intention of both the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall, that Camilla would assume the title of Princess Consort, then why would there be any need to go against the intention of the King and his spouse? Quite simply, there is none.
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
  #619  
Old 01-29-2008, 06:59 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,861
Well lets be honest here - it could be done but it wont be done. Why? Because no one cares enough. No one can afford to care enough. Hence why it's a non issue and hence why all these polls and debates about it are a waste of time.
__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
  #620  
Old 01-29-2008, 07:00 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
Which would only be if they choose to go the legal route and not a simple "brute force" route. I really doubt that there would be that many people, especially in officialdom, who would refuse to call her "HRH the Princess Consort" if the Palace simply instructed people to call her that. It would be a bigger stretch than anything that's been done before (Princess Alice, Lady Louise, etc.), but I think they could pull it off and simply stick their heads in the sand. I don't want them to, but I think they could.
I don't think they will get away with it by the means you describe. The legal issues are very clear that the wife of The King must be Queen Consort and nothing else. All of the constitutional precedents were thoroughly examined in 1936 and there is no other conclusion that can be made.

The only difference will be whether or not Parliament is prepared to act with legislation denying her rightful rank in law. This is doubtful in my opinion and creates more problems than it would solve.

Either she is accepted as Queen Consort or Charles must abdicate.
__________________

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 12:28 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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