The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #841  
Old 04-21-2008, 07:20 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
I think your take on this is absolutely correct. I just wonder if 'they' (palace machine)thought that no one would pick up on the legislation change issue, in which case 'they' could act surprised when the time came and say oh well, she'll have to be Queen after all. Thinking by that time, the public will have warmed to Camilla.
People in general here feel that we just have to put up with all this but deep in somewhere not many people are feeling truly comfortable about what had happened.

Nobody really wants any harm done to Camilla but people in general just feel something is not quite right about their marriage.
__________________

  #842  
Old 04-21-2008, 07:36 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
I think your take on this is absolutely correct. I just wonder if 'they' (palace machine)thought that no one would pick up on the legislation change issue, in which case 'they' could act surprised when the time came and say oh well, she'll have to be Queen after all. Thinking by that time, the public will have warmed to Camilla.
I think that's exactly what they assumed would happen. Unfortunately, in a constitutional monarchy, these precedents must be considered by the will of the people as represented by Parliament, which is ultimately sovereign in the UK.

MP's weren't too happy to have the issue glossed over in a quick press release and started challenging the "intention" immediately. In the end, Clarence House conceded "legislation may be required to tidy-up the issue when the time comes", a very different stance than the initial one taken.

Personally, I do not believe Parliament will be willing to change the precedent and she will be Queen Camilla. But if the public opposition is clear, they will have no choice but to pass legislation.
__________________

  #843  
Old 04-21-2008, 08:55 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,587
Well there is another choice, even though many here would have me hung for mentioning it. Also, I firmly believe that this is part and parcel of the whole constitutional defender of the faith, remarriage issue. As far back as as the time of the separation from Diana, Charles consulted with Arnold, Lord Goodman, eminent lawyer and friend, who told him (according to published reports) that a divorce would not prevent Charles from becoming King, but a second marriage would. Charles replied that he did not intend to remarry. Charles also, in reply to QEII's letter, requesting they C+D proceed with the divorce, reiterated that he would not remarry. Interestingly, at the time leading up to Charles and Camilla's engagement announcement, BBC had a pole up (google C&C, engagement) which the overwhelming response was if they marry, he should renounce the throne. This combined with the Archbishop of Canterbury's decided unenthusiastic respose to the actual wedding of Charles to Camilla, leads me to wonder if the whole Princess Consort thing was premeditated to make the acceptance of Camilla more likely. Then after (hopefully) a long marriage, when QEII dies, people will be less hostile to Camilla. Just for the record, I am more interested in the historical/constitutional aspect of this than a mud fight about Camilla.
  #844  
Old 04-21-2008, 09:18 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
The issue at the time was whether the Church was prepared to accept a divorced Defender of the Faith. As the Church of England is without question a vessel of the Crown, it would be hard for the Archbishop of Canterbury not to accept a divorced monarch.

But the question of a remarriage was dicey since the previous wife was living and the proposed woman was a factor in the failure of the first marriage. Had Diana lived, I doubt Charles would have been able to marry Camilla with the consent of The Queen, but it's a question that can never be really answered.

The issue of Camilla's rank and title when he becomes King is clear constitutionally. She must be Queen, unless Parliament and the Crown Commonwealth are willing to accept a lesser title. If public pressure is strong enough, they will.
  #845  
Old 04-21-2008, 09:31 PM
sirhon11234's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,453
Quote:
Had Diana lived, I doubt Charles would have been able to marry Camilla with the consent of The Queen,
But why is that? I don't really understand why Charles and Camilla couldn't get married if the Princess was still alive.
__________________
"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
  #846  
Old 04-21-2008, 10:31 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
If Diana had remarried, there'd have been no reason why Charles shouldn't. Especially with the changes in the Church of England's attitude to divorce.
  #847  
Old 04-21-2008, 11:06 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
If Diana had remarried, there'd have been no reason why Charles shouldn't. Especially with the changes in the Church of England's attitude to divorce.
I agree with that.
  #848  
Old 04-21-2008, 11:17 PM
Princess Alexandra's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 12
I think that she should be Queen its only fair...the princess consort title just isnt right
  #849  
Old 04-21-2008, 11:52 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,546
I think Charles and Camilla would have married sooner with Diana alive. She would have had several more high-profile relationships if not a second marriage, and the Diana circle types wouldn't be nearly as influential.
  #850  
Old 04-22-2008, 12:05 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,978
Possibly so, but I don't believe Charles would have remarried as long as the Queen Mother was alive. '05' was an appropriate year.

Quote:
She would have had several more high-profile relationships if not a second marriage
You have no way of knowing that.
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
  #851  
Old 04-22-2008, 02:15 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

The issue of Camilla's rank and title when he becomes King is clear constitutionally. She must be Queen, unless Parliament and the Crown Commonwealth are willing to accept a lesser title. If public pressure is strong enough, they will.
We had that argument before but here it is again: what we are doing is coffeetable-talk at the moment. Of course we can discuss if the people are willing now to accept a Queen Camilla. But once the current queen is dead,t he whole climate in Britain will be affected. People will find that they love the new king as he is the symbol that their country is overcoming death. There's a deep aspect of eternity in human life involved in the idea of a hereditary monarchy (The queen is dead. Long live the king!). I have very serious doubts that the people of Britian who will feel an inner feeling of sadness and loss will do anything to hurt their new hope for eternity, their new king, by humiliating their new queen in public.

When Diana died, the people had no such new hope, they just looked for somebody to blame in order to cope with their loss. But when the queen dies, people will look up to Charles and his new office, finding consolation in him. And in the fact that he has a wife at his side who will be dignified in mourning and remind them all of the positive characteristics of their nation, for she will be a very British, very lady-like queen in mourning and she will show that she is willing to console the new king and with him the nation.

Of course I think some tabloids will immediately raise the question if Camilla should be queen - they are already prepared for it. But I doubt they will be heard by a mourning nation. I only hope the men in grey don't devise a wrong step by hte new king and his wife, for all could be lost then.
__________________
'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.
  #852  
Old 04-22-2008, 02:25 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Royale View Post
You have no way of knowing that.
Well, no, but I thought such a disclaimer wasn't necessary since that was self-evident.
  #853  
Old 04-22-2008, 03:29 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,978
It's just stating any relationship yet to have happened with the utmost conviction, is factuallly ineligible and facts are what makes this discussion worthwhile...
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
  #854  
Old 04-22-2008, 06:03 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post
We had that argument before but here it is again: what we are doing is coffeetable-talk at the moment...
Well, I am not too sure re: what you think will happen in due course here in the United Kingdom. People in general have become more indifferent in the matters re: the royal family but are more annoyed by the facts such as how much they spent etc, and particularly, the Prince of Wales has not been so popular for such a long time, by the time the Demise of the Crown takes place, people may have become less favourable towards our royalty. In the end, our monarchy will be, more likely, reformed or transformed into a much simpler form so that none of this all costly affairs will be talked about again and again. Even the older generations are feeling so "let down" by them these days for they are more "celeb-like" than "royal" that people will just become more and more distant from that family.

When the housing price has gone down so badly but the mortgage rate has gone up so high and many middle-class people have had their precious homes repossessed by their mortgage lenders, many unskilled people are feeling as if they are overwhelmed by the recent mass migration from Poland and other Eastern European countries etc and the gun related crimes etc are in increase etc etc, all what people see in the household of the Prince of Wales and other roayl persons' matters are just so irelevant to them but only to annoy them. When a hard working family loses their precious home and cannot afford their annual holiday in Italy or Spain any longer, they hear Prince William used an army helicoptor (which is funded by the tax payers' money and our service men and women are facing such dangers in Afghanistan and Iraq etc because of the lack of equipments etc) to make his quick way to get to his weekend break etc, they only feel that they are ridiculed by them and question 'who do they think they are ?"

Even some people who have been invited to the royal functions no longer feel so grateful to the Prince of Wales (though they are invited to such functions) because he seems to be interested in sort of people who are "in" things than those are far too unknow.

It is only the Queen whom many of us really look up to nowadays.
  #855  
Old 04-22-2008, 06:38 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenissima View Post

snip interesting post

It is only the Queen whom many of us really look up to nowadays.
Maybe because there is not much happening which feeds their positive feelings for the Royals. There's been no wedding for ages, there are no small kids whose pics can be enjoyed (Lady Louise is kept out of sight and her brother's christening was not even documented by a pic of the queen with him), Charles and Camilla are happily married but both are already quite old and people feel he is still waiting to start working in his "real" job. William and Harry, Beatrice and Eugenie only get negative media coverage... the list appears to be endless... So there really is no big event where people could start to feel for their RF again.

My hope is that William will not only start working as a Royal and bring a bit more "Royal glamour" to the stage, but that he will start his public duties with the announcement of his engagement and then after the wedding will go along into his public life with his wife at his side. Just like Alexandra and Mary renewed the interest in the Danish Royals. Or the wedding of Willem-Alexander with Maxima brought new charme to the Netherlands.
__________________
'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.
  #856  
Old 04-22-2008, 06:52 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 801
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenissima View Post
It seems as though Princess Marina remained a Princess of Greece and Denmark in her own right even after her marriage to the Duke of Kent. Following her elder son's wedding, she simply reverted to her own substantive princely title and her late husband's niece the Queen permitted her to be style as HRH Princess Marina the Duchess of Kent instead of HRH the Dowager Duchess of Kent.
Sorry somewhat late to this discussion but I'm not on this board everyday!

No Marina did not retain her title of Princess of Greece and Denmark in the UK after her marriage to The Duke of Kent. British citizens cannot hold foreign titles. Marina became a British citizen when she married, so if George did not have a dukedom, then she would have been Princess George. The two of them together would not have been Prince George and Princess Marina but Prince and Princess George. After her marriage Marina was always The Duchess of Kent, the Court Circular always had her as The Duchess of Kent during the 30s, 40s and 50s. In the UK she was not Princess Marina. When her son married, she didn't revert back to her substantive princely title, she was granted a courtesy title of Princess Marina by the queen. ( please don't quote wikipedia to me, it's wrong! Check with a royal historian who specialises in British titles) So it's then she became Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent and the Court Circular reflects this.

King George V changed the rules on foreign titles, overnight princes turned into marquis, lords, etc. Queen Victoria's daughter Princess Beatrice went from being Princess Henry of Battenberg to Princess Beatrice as she was the daughter of a queen. Princesses Victoria Helena and Marie Louise of Schleswig-Holstein to simply Princesses VH and ML.

So when Marina married into the British royal family, in the UK she was no longer Princess Marina until she was given a courtesy title in 1961. Outside the UK Marina could still remain Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark. In 1947 Princess Katherine of Greece married a British citizen, she also became a British citizen and lost her princess title ( and rank) in the UK. As she would attend royal events George VI gave her a courtesy title of the style and rank of a daughter of a British Earl. She became Lady Katherine, but outside the UK she was still Princess Katherine and this was reflected in the 2002 judgement for compensation against the Greek government that the Human Rights Court made, she was listed as Princess Katherine of Greece ( not Lady Katherine Branham) She died last year and was buried in Greece as Princess Katherine.
Earl Mountbatten's daughters Lady Patricia and Lady Pamela Mountbatten as late as the 1940's signed guest books in their relatives German castles as Princess Patrica of Battenberg and Princess Pamela of Battenberg.
  #857  
Old 04-22-2008, 07:21 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 113
Oh, I see. So, Princess Marina retained her Princess Marina outside here whilst she was married to her husband. Talking about this note, the Duke of Marlborough is supposed to hold a title of a prince by the Holy Roman Empire but I suppose he is not supposed to use it here but only in Germany ? Is that it ? Having said that, we call the Duke of Leinster, His Grace the Duke of Leinster but he is not a duke here in England but is the Viscount Leinster when he was sitting in the House of Lords. I suppose he prefered much grander style to his lesser style. Oh, in that case, will it be permisible for the Duke of Marlborough to call himself "prince" John or whatever instead of the Duke of Marlborough ? Even people like the Tolstoys still call themselves counts and countesses here.
  #858  
Old 04-22-2008, 07:37 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenissima View Post
Oh, in that case, will it be permisible for the Duke of Marlborough to call himself "prince" John or whatever instead of the Duke of Marlborough ?
Titles of the Holy Roman Empire never passed through the female line. It's true that the First Duke of Marlborough, John Churchill, was created a prince of Mindelheim in 1705 but as he had no son, the title became extinct. The Dukedom of Marlborough in Britain is one of the few with a special reminder that allows daughters to inherit, thus there is still a Duke of Marlborough, but as he is no male-line descendant of the "Fürst von Mindelheim", this title no longer exists. BTW - Germany does not longer recognize titles anyway.
__________________
'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.
  #859  
Old 04-22-2008, 07:43 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post
Maybe because there is not much happening which feeds their positive feelings for the Royals. There's been no wedding for ages, there are no small kids whose pics can be enjoyed (Lady Louise is kept out of sight and her brother's christening was not even documented by a pic of the queen with him), Charles and Camilla are happily married but both are already quite old and people feel he is still waiting to start working in his "real" job. William and Harry, Beatrice and Eugenie only get negative media coverage... the list appears to be endless... So there really is no big event where people could start to feel for their RF again.

My hope is that William will not only start working as a Royal and bring a bit more "Royal glamour" to the stage, but that he will start his public duties with the announcement of his engagement and then after the wedding will go along into his public life with his wife at his side. Just like Alexandra and Mary renewed the interest in the Danish Royals. Or the wedding of Willem-Alexander with Maxima brought new charme to the Netherlands.
To tell you the truth, the general public here is a lot happier when our royal people are not so glamorous but more dowdy. People seem to have some respect towards the Princess Royal because she is hard working and also not so glamourous but looks more like an old fashioned "dame". People in general do not seem to mind if the Prince of Wales had his staff party at the Ritz or the Prince and Princess Michael went to the SAVOY (though it is closed at the moment for refurbishment) for some function (because those places are not greatly fun though I like the professional service which the Ritz provides. They still use those large keys for their guest bedrooms - a nice change from those American sort of plastic cards. Oh, I like the American Bar, still, at the SAVOY, but I suppose I am getting old. Those places such as the China White and all are far too much for me) but when we hear they were hobnobbing with some terribly fashionable people etc at some very trendy places etc in Knightsbridge etc, then, people start feeling that they are just using their privilege as "royal" to have fun. Many people have to work very hard to have their tables reserved in such places but those people just have it all because they are happened to be "royal". This seems to put a lot of people off nowadays.

Many of us still have such respects towards the Queen because she seems to understand her people's sentiment and appreciate their day-to-day works etc that are, usually, unknown. However, what many now see in the royal matters are fun, glamour and celeb-like life style.
  #860  
Old 04-22-2008, 07:45 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenissima View Post
Having said that, we call the Duke of Leinster, His Grace the Duke of Leinster but he is not a duke here in England but is the Viscount Leinster when he was sitting in the House of Lords. I suppose he prefered much grander style to his lesser style.
The Duke of Leinster is an the Premier Peer of Ireland and as thus his title is recognized in the UK. He has other, lower titles as well. The Viscounty of Leinster is in the Peerage of Great Britian, maybe that's why he uses it in the House of Lords. But of course he is recognized in the order of precedence as a duke.
__________________

__________________
'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.
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 10:57 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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