The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #641  
Old 01-29-2008, 09:59 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
I don't think we'll ever find out the truth about a lot of aspects of the Queen Mother until someone manages to write an authoritative biography that isn't vetted by the royal family. I'll be extremely surprised if the Shawcross biography isn't more of the same "the Queen Mother was perfect" stuff we've been getting for the last goodness knows how many decades.
Well she was.
__________________

__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
  #642  
Old 01-29-2008, 10:00 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirhon11234 View Post
jcbcode99 (how did you come up with that name?) I don't have a problem with Camilla becoming Queen, the title is not affiliated with Diana the POW is.
When she decided to style herself as DOC I was very pleased with that choice, that is why I haven't objected to Camilla becoming queen. The Princess of Wales is a Queen in my Heart, so its of no importance to me when Camilla becomes queen.
If Diana is a Queen in too many people's hearts, it'll be of great importance. As stated earlier in the thread, a constitutional monarchy exists because the public wants it. If the public can't stomach the notion of Charles as King and Camilla as Queen because Diana holds that place in their hearts, then I really do fear for the future of the monarchy.

After the abdication in 1936 it was relatively easy (although by no means a thoroughly foregone conclusion) for the Duke of York to become King in his brother's place. If something of the sort happens to Charles because people have tuned out of a monarchy where Diana no longer exists, in favour of a fantasy monarchy in their hearts and minds where Diana reigns supreme, then there are going to be much harder questions being asked along the lines of "why bother with the monarchy at all?" And the answers aren't going to be all that obvious.
__________________

  #643  
Old 01-29-2008, 10:03 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
Well she was.
She was what? Perfect? That vindictive old bat? Come on, Sam.
  #644  
Old 01-29-2008, 10:11 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,861
Vindictive old bat? Grande dame of the British Empire I'd say. Marvellous woman and we could do with a few more like her rather than her chavvy grand-daughters. We could do worse than the Queen Mother for inspiration.
__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
  #645  
Old 01-29-2008, 10:15 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
Yep, vindictive old bat. Grande dame too, of course.
  #646  
Old 01-29-2008, 10:33 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
I don't think we'll ever find out the truth about a lot of aspects of the Queen Mother until someone manages to write an authoritative biography that isn't vetted by the royal family. I'll be extremely surprised if the Shawcross biography isn't more of the same "the Queen Mother was perfect" stuff we've been getting for the last goodness knows how many decades.
It will be surprising if The Queen allows Shawcross to publish any true revelations on her mother's feelings about the many events in her life. The Queen Mother was not one for revelation and preferred a fantasy image instead.

It was well-known The Queen Mother was adamantly opposed to Charles marrying Camilla. That's not to say she didn't like her personally, but accepting her as the new Princess of Wales and future Queen Consort was another matter altogether.
  #647  
Old 01-29-2008, 10:51 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,861
Is it well known? I don't believe that for a second. The Queen Mother adored her grandson and wanted him to be happy. Camilla makes him happy, I refuse to believe that the Queen Mother would have with-held such happiness from someone she loved.
__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
  #648  
Old 01-29-2008, 11:15 PM
kimebear's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Albany, United States
Posts: 1,380
But the truth remains that both the Queen Mother and the current Queen have always put duty and honor before everything in their lives. I cannot in good conscience believe that the Queen Mother would been happy seeing Camilla as Charles' wife. Yes, she makes him happy. Yes, I'm sure she is a perfectly lovely woman who will someday make a dignified queen, but would the Queen Mother have approved of the marriage, absolutely not. Wallis made her husband very happy too, but the Queen Mother never forgave her either.
  #649  
Old 01-29-2008, 11:51 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,861
The Queen Mother wasn't exactly close to David though. It's a different situation with different ties. And I don't know how you can say the truth remains that the Queen Mother and the current Queen have always put honour first when neither of them have exactly had anything happen in which they've had to do so. The Queen Mother didn't say anything after 1947 except, "Such a charming film" so where people get off saying she would have loathed the marriage of her grandson is beyond me. How can you presume to know what a woman who never ever spoke to the press felt about a situation she may or may not have been asked her opinion on?
__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
  #650  
Old 01-30-2008, 12:38 AM
sirhon11234's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
If Diana is a Queen in too many people's hearts, it'll be of great importance. As stated earlier in the thread, a constitutional monarchy exists because the public wants it. If the public can't stomach the notion of Charles as King and Camilla as Queen because Diana holds that place in their hearts, then I really do fear for the future of the monarchy.

After the abdication in 1936 it was relatively easy (although by no means a thoroughly foregone conclusion) for the Duke of York to become King in his brother's place. If something of the sort happens to Charles because people have tuned out of a monarchy where Diana no longer exists, in favour of a fantasy monarchy in their hearts and minds where Diana reigns supreme, then there are going to be much harder questions being asked along the lines of "why bother with the monarchy at all?" And the answers aren't going to be all that obvious.
Well, your assesment is very interesting Elspeth. I think its unfair that some people don't want Charles to become king because they don't want to see Camilla become queen. And then there are probably some people who only want Charles to become king because they want to see her as his queen.
__________________
"I think the biggest disease the world suffers from in this day and age is the disease of people feeling unloved."
Diana, the Princess of Wales
  #651  
Old 01-30-2008, 04:11 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
She can't be Queen and a Princess Consort at the same time. She is Her Majesty The Queen, not Her Royal Highness Princess Camilla, once her husband becomes King.

That's the difference.
I'm not sure about that, since I read the documents of the discussion between the heraldry-expert Garter Principal king of Arms, the senior officer at the college of Arms and the government when it came to create Prince Philip a prince of the UK even though he was not born into the Royal family but married into it and was in a position where he could not partake on his spouse's rank. In addition there was the discussion about the rank of wifes of Royal princes.

So while of course Camilla would be queen as wife of the king she could in addition be a princess of the UK in her own right. Because the reading is that the wife only shares the rank of her husband but does not yet become herself a peeress as a Royal duchess or a princess. That's why Camilla is sometimes called HRH The princess Charles, princess of Wales...

But there are cases when a peeress in her own right married another peer, she still stayed a peeress, even though she often took on the name of her husband if he was higher ranked than her. So Charles of course can create Camilla a princess of the UK in her own right with the title of princess Consort.

But what happens if king Charles decides in order to solve some problems in his family that it's time to do something for gender equality? He could decree that all "children of the body" of princesses of the UK are to be treated like the children of the princes. That would mean that Anne's children become prince/princess as grandchildren of a souverain and that Beatrice and Eugenie's children are Lord/Lady Firstname Windsor or father's name with the rank of children of a duke. But it would mean as well that Tom and Laura would be Lord/Lady Firstname as they are children of a princess but not child/grandchild of the souverain....

Hm... I think he'd better stick with his wife the queen before he creates this kind of public problem.
__________________
'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.
  #652  
Old 01-30-2008, 08:00 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post
So while of course Camilla would be queen as wife of the king she could in addition be a princess of the UK in her own right. Because the reading is that the wife only shares the rank of her husband but does not yet become herself a peeress as a Royal duchess or a princess. That's why Camilla is sometimes called HRH The princess Charles, princess of Wales...

But there are cases when a peeress in her own right married another peer, she still stayed a peeress, even though she often took on the name of her husband if he was higher ranked than her. So Charles of course can create Camilla a princess of the UK in her own right with the title of princess Consort.
Her rank and title flow from her husband, not in her own right. She is a commoner with no titles of birth and is HRH The Princess Charles by marriage, in addition to his other titles and styles as the heir to the throne.

Once he is King, she can only be HM The Queen as there is no other style or title for the wife of the Sovereign. Since Charles would no longer be a Prince of the UK, Camilla cannot be a Princess of the UK as his wife.

Her precedence and title once she is Queen Consort is hers for life by right of the succession. If Charles dies, Camilla would remain a dowager queen with superior precedence to the princesses of the blood and after the new Queen.

That's why Parliament would have to define her rights legally if she wishes to be HRH The Princess Consort instead.
  #653  
Old 01-30-2008, 08:18 AM
muriel's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
Her rank and title flow from her husband, not in her own right. She is a commoner with no titles of birth and is HRH The Princess Charles by marriage, in addition to his other titles and styles as the heir to the throne.

Once he is King, she can only be HM The Queen as there is no other style or title for the wife of the Sovereign. Since Charles would no longer be a Prince of the UK, Camilla cannot be a Princess of the UK as his wife.

Her precedence and title once she is Queen Consort is hers for life by right of the succession. If Charles dies, Camilla would remain a dowager queen with superior precedence to the princesses of the blood and after the new Queen.

That's why Parliament would have to define her rights legally if she wishes to be HRH The Princess Consort instead.
If at the time of Charles' accession public opinion does not support Camilla being referred to as Queen, I don't think the issue of Camilla being referred to as Princess Consort would be put to Parliament. She would continue to legally be Queen (just as she is currently the Princess of Wales) but would be referred to as the Princess Consort. Putting the new title would be a torturous process, and would need to be approved by the Parliaments of all the countries and dominions of the realm. I don't see that happening. You risk opening the whole issue of the relevance of the monarchy
  #654  
Old 01-30-2008, 08:57 AM
TheTruth's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Between the first and second floor of the Eiffel Tower, France
Posts: 2,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
If Diana is a Queen in too many people's hearts, it'll be of great importance. As stated earlier in the thread, a constitutional monarchy exists because the public wants it. If the public can't stomach the notion of Charles as King and Camilla as Queen because Diana holds that place in their hearts, then I really do fear for the future of the monarchy.

After the abdication in 1936 it was relatively easy (although by no means a thoroughly foregone conclusion) for the Duke of York to become King in his brother's place. If something of the sort happens to Charles because people have tuned out of a monarchy where Diana no longer exists, in favour of a fantasy monarchy in their hearts and minds where Diana reigns supreme, then there are going to be much harder questions being asked along the lines of "why bother with the monarchy at all?" And the answers aren't going to be all that obvious.
It's going to be a tough situation IMO. Some simply want to abolish the Monarchy, some want Camilla as Queen and others already think about making a revolution if this title is given to her. Then we have the Diana/Camilla "problem" but I don't see how it would bother people. Diana was divorced so she couldn't have sat next to Charles as Queen. But like you said perfectly, there's the risk of creating a big mess and destroy the constitutional monarchy. Some Diana fans feel as much anger for Charles as for Camilla so even if he becomes King, the royal institution will also have a hard time.
__________________

Please, help find a cure for ALS

Because it matters...
  #655  
Old 01-30-2008, 09:20 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
Her rank and title flow from her husband, not in her own right. She is a commoner with no titles of birth and is HRH The Princess Charles by marriage, in addition to his other titles and styles as the heir to the throne.

Once he is King, she can only be HM The Queen as there is no other style or title for the wife of the Sovereign. Since Charles would no longer be a Prince of the UK, Camilla cannot be a Princess of the UK as his wife.
That is not correct. Charles as king can create her a princess in her own right just like his mother created prince Philip a prince in his own right. Both Philip and Camilla were not considered a prince/princess in their own right but it was established that the souverain can create a Royal spouse into a prince/princess in their own right. HM did that with her husband and Charles can do that with his wife. Okay, normally it makes no sense as his wife will be sharing his rank but if he wants to he can do it. Because his spouse is not queen herself but only his Queen Consort, so she does not wear the Crown and her titles in her own right don't merge with the Crown on his ascension and they don't when she is created a princess of the UK.

It was established as a fact when the ychecked into the status of the first commoner to become a member of the Royal family - which was HRH The Duchess of York.

Here's the link to the documents:
Files from the National Archives (UK) on Royal Styles and Titles

That's the list and you can then click on the documents.

That's the link to the discussion about Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon marrying the duke of York:
HO 144/22945 -
it's halfway down the dicument, starting with a date in 1923.
__________________
'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.
  #656  
Old 01-30-2008, 09:27 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 255
I think the Diana supporters, who have never come to terms with the fact that not only was she divorced, but if she was still alive would be well on in her 40's and probably married to someone else, make a lot more noise than their current actual numbers.

I would be very surprised if, when the Queen dies, there is any general 'uprising' over Charles being King. We have a Monarchy, and the various parts of the United Kingdom have had one going back well over 1000 years. It is laid down who is the heir, and this has largely been the person who has inherited. I think the vast bulk of the population would accept the normal process of succession.
  #657  
Old 01-30-2008, 10:38 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post
Okay, normally it makes no sense as his wife will be sharing his rank but if he wants to he can do it. Because his spouse is not queen herself but only his Queen Consort, so she does not wear the Crown and her titles in her own right don't merge with the Crown on his ascension and they don't when she is created a princess of the UK.
He can create her HRH The Princess Consort if Parliament agrees it is constitutionally possible for a Queen Consort with the rank of Her Majesty to hold the lesser style and rank of HRH and Princess of the UK at the same time. This is not possible under the current precedents.

Legislation will be required to remove her lawful rank and title as Queen, freeing Charles to create her a Princess in her own right as The Queen did with The Duke of Edinburgh. She cannot be styled as a Princess when she is not a princess in law. Right now, she IS a Princess of the UK and styled by her husband's peerage as Duchess of Cornwall.

I do not see how this is possible since it would call into question what happened in 1936 with Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson. The King had suggested to Baldwin that he marry Wallis morganatically and create her HRH The Duchess of Lancaster, rather than Queen. Baldwin and The Commons agreed there is no such thing as a morganatic wife for The Sovereign and she is automatically Queen as the wife of The King.

So my point remains that either she is Queen or legislation is passed denying her rightful title and rank and creating her a morganatic wife as Princess Consort.
  #658  
Old 01-30-2008, 10:47 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post
Charles as king can create her a princess in her own right just like his mother created prince Philip a prince in his own right. Both Philip and Camilla were not considered a prince/princess in their own right but it was established that the souverain can create a Royal spouse into a prince/princess in their own right. HM did that with her husband and Charles can do that with his wife.
The situation with Philip is very different indeed since husbands do not share the titles or styles of their wives. George VI created Philip a Duke with the style of Royal Highness upon marriage to The Princess Elizabeth to ensure her husband would have his own appropriate rank and title.

Once she became Queen, the issue of whether Philip was automatically a Prince of the UK by being created HRH by George VI was reviewed. The conclusion was that he enjoyed the style and title of Royal Highness, but was not a Prince of the UK unless letters patent were issued creating him one. In 1957, The Queen issued letters patent taking care of it.

The precedents with Philip do not apply to Camilla.
  #659  
Old 01-30-2008, 12:46 PM
jcbcode99's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Richmond Area, United States
Posts: 1,979
So, let me see if I understand this. Regardless of everything that has occurred, when Charles becomes King, Camilla is automatically Queen--she cannot hold a lesser style because is Queen, according to Baldwin when Edward wanted to marry Wallis and give her the style of HRH The Duchess of Lancaster. That wouldn't work because the wife of the sovereign automatically becomes the Queen, correct?
So, one route is to create a law before Charles ascends the throne that would make Camilla HRH The Princess Consort upon his ascension; that way there is no confusion and it is settled in such a way that she is never Queen and thusly, never loses the title of Queen.
Let's say she is created HRH The Princess Consort. If Charles predeceases Camilla, what would she then be known as? She wouldn't be the Dowager Princess Consort because William's wife would be Queen--would Camilla continue to be the Princess Consort? What would her ranking be? A Dowager Queen still holds a great deal of rank--would we be looking at yet another title change for Camilla? Why should she have to lose title rank because Charles dies? How would that work? That's an issue that should be addressed.
It is much easier to just let her be Queen and Dowager Queen. That is how it has been done. Why change it now? I'm already confused trying to figure out the options. Perhaps someone could list the options so we can have a reference point?
__________________
Janet

"We make a living by what we do; we make a life by what we give" Winston Churchill
  #660  
Old 01-30-2008, 12:52 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
I assume they might do what they did for the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester and let her be known as Princess Camilla. Princess Alice was never a princess in her own right, but that's how she was styled after her husband died and her daughter-in-law became Duchess of Gloucester.

Really, between the morganatic arrangement where the Duchess of Windsor wasn't an HRH even though the Duke was and even though morganatic marriage doesn't exist in British law, the Princess Alice precedent, and then Lady Louise rather than HRH Princess Louise, the royal family are rather giving the impression that if need be, they'll just make it up as they go along if that's what it takes to get to where they need to get.

Which I'm sure is part of the confusion about whether they can or can't make the Princess Consort thing stick.
__________________

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
american archie mountbatten-windsor asian birth britannia british british royal family buckingham palace camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels customs dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family tree fashion and style gemstones genetics george vi gradenigo harry and meghan henry viii highgrove history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs japan japanese imperial family japan history kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos książ castle liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchy mongolia names pless politics portugal prince harry queen elizabeth ii queen victoria st edward sussex suthida thai royal family tradition unfinished portrait united states wales welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:07 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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