The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1061  
Old 07-24-2008, 11:40 PM
sthreats's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: midwest, United States
Posts: 433
I think Princess Consort is appropriate for Camilla. She is his consort. She will not be a ruler. The name Queen Consort Camilla would be shortened to QUEEN and that would be inappropiate.
__________________

  #1062  
Old 07-24-2008, 11:46 PM
sthreats's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: midwest, United States
Posts: 433
a different 2nd wife...I think there would still be hostilty against Prince Charles because of the way his first marriage ended. Even if some Lady X came along people would still be against him. Maybe not completely fair but that's life.
__________________

  #1063  
Old 07-25-2008, 12:12 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 589
Quote:
Originally Posted by sthreats View Post
I think Princess Consort is appropriate for Camilla. She is his consort. She will not be a ruler. The name Queen Consort Camilla would be shortened to QUEEN and that would be inappropiate.
Queen Consort is King's consort, and a ruler Queen is a Queen Regina. That's why I always consider that these two titles are different ones. Consort and Regina are two different occupations/job descriptions.

Just like the difference between a born princess and a princess because of marrying a princess. Both use Princess as their titles, however with proper background understanding, people can tell the differences.
  #1064  
Old 07-25-2008, 12:17 AM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by sthreats View Post
I think Princess Consort is appropriate for Camilla. She is his consort. She will not be a ruler. The name Queen Consort Camilla would be shortened to QUEEN and that would be inappropiate.
Except that's not actually how it works.

In the UK, women (unless they are suo jure) hold their dignities and titles from their husbands, and not the other way around. Thus Camilla is Princess of Wales (though she doesn't use the title), Duchess of Cornwall, Countess of Chester, Duchess of Rothesay, etc etc etc, because her husband is the Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, etc. This is also why, prior to accession, EIIR was The Princess Elizabeth (title in her own right), Duchess of Edinburgh (held from her husband). Upon accession, she became, simply, Queen--while Philip remained Duke of Edinburgh, because men do not hold titles from their wives.

Therefore, when Charles becomes King, Camilla automatically and immediately becomes Queen. Yes, she will be a Queen consort (as opposed to Queen regnant, a Queen who rules in her own right--see Anne, Victoria, Elizabeths I and II--but note that Queen consort and Queen regnant are descriptive words for the position, not the title), but she will still be Her Majesty Queen Camilla. Period. This is how it's always been done. For goodness' sake, the Queen Mum was HM Queen Elizabeth! Has anyone complained about that? Has anyone suggested she should be known as the utterly made-up title of 'princess consort'?

Of course not. Nor has that ever been suggested in almost a thousand years of royal history in the UK (dating from 1066). Until now. Hmmm.. could that be because of the nature of Charles' marriage to Camilla? Could it possibly be because many people dislike her?

Naa. Couldn't be.
  #1065  
Old 07-25-2008, 12:19 AM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by love_cc View Post
Queen Consort is King's consort, and a ruler Queen is a Queen Regina. That's why I always consider that these two titles are different ones. Consort and Regina are two different occupations/job descriptions.

Just like the difference between a born princess and a princess because of marrying a princess. Both use Princess as their titles, however with proper background understanding, people can tell the differences.
Not quite. You mean Queen regnant; regina simply means Queen. This is why EIIR signs all documents Elizabeth R--Elizabeth Regina. Victoria would have signed Victoria R I--Victoria Regina Imperatrix (Empress).

'Consort' is descriptive. It is not a title.
  #1066  
Old 07-25-2008, 12:37 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: fort lauderdale, United States
Posts: 61
Someone in a prior post here that I can't find now stated that among the female counterpart titles for the wife of a Prince of Wales is "Princess of Scotland". This is not so since the children of the monarch are princes and princesses of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. There hasn't been a separate designation of "Prince/Princess of Scotland" since the Act of Union in the time of Queen Anne. Only "of Ireland" remained a distinct designation, then that disappeared at the time of the creation of the Irish Free State so that today there's only "of Northern Ireland".
  #1067  
Old 07-25-2008, 12:43 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
According to the Royal Family website, Prince Charles is Prince and Great Steward of Scotland

"The Prince's new status made him The Duke of Cornwall. He also automatically took the Scottish titles Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland."

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page5647.asp

Mind you, I can't see Camilla being stuck with "Great Stewardess..." so maybe this set of titles doesn't carry across to the wife.
  #1068  
Old 07-25-2008, 01:19 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
why would they wish to call her a princess later?
Because it would then be considered (under the circumstances of the situation) the next 'reasonable' elevation.

Though already Princess of Wales, she is known officially as Duchess of Cornwall. Should Charles succeed his mother as is expected, Camilla would then be, under any such legislation, officially styled and titled HRH The Princess Consort.

From Duchess to Princess (not Princess to Queen) is how it should work if any such motion was successful in delegating this unprecedented amendment
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
  #1069  
Old 07-25-2008, 01:29 AM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
Quote:
Camilla would then be, under any such legislation, officially styled and titled HRH The Princess Consort.
Which is, as you said, unprecedented. Not to mention foolish, pointless, deeply disrespectful of tradition...
  #1070  
Old 07-25-2008, 02:39 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,978
Which is your opinion and you're welcome to it. You and whoever agrees with your sentiment.

I don't agree, and there seem to be others who feel the same. Wonderful thing difference of opinion...
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
  #1071  
Old 07-25-2008, 04:35 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melania View Post
Hi Skydragon, could you explain this part for me please? Are you saying that tabloids are setting propaganda to influence people for or against Camilla as queen? And that ordinary people are coming to their own conclusions without the help of the media? Thanks... and I greatly appreciate it. And I hope my questions are not offensive because I really want to understand what you are saying. Thanks.
Whilst I believe the tabloids will use anything they can to sell papers, that is not quite what I meant.
Many of the polls (mainly in the Express & Mail) are phone in polls or conducted on the internet. One person can phone in many times to sway the vote (I do know a woman who boasts that she has done this. ). Again with the internet, people can have multiple email accounts to use IF the paper actually asks for one, many do not and all it requires is a clearing of cookies and they can spend the week voting.
I do meet many different people from different walks of life and if the subject of Queen Camilla comes up, they say it's 'daft' thinking about denying her the title and they can't understand what the fuss is about, 'she's his wife' seems to be the overwhelming message. The main dissenters seem to be those whose own marriage has broken up, who have not yet found another partner.

{assumption about other people's sources of information deleted - Elspeth}
-----------------------
Camilla is definitely Princess of Scotland!
  #1072  
Old 07-25-2008, 10:34 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melania View Post
Hi Skydragon, could you explain this part for me please? Are you saying that tabloids are setting propaganda to influence people for or against Camilla as queen? And that ordinary people are coming to their own conclusions without the help of the media? Thanks... and I greatly appreciate it. And I hope my questions are not offensive because I really want to understand what you are saying. Thanks.
Most tabloid polls are not conducted in a way that serious statistical science recognices their results. So you could say that these polls are there for a purpose: to underline and support the opinion of the newspaper in question. But as history told us that the Winner writes history and Diana can't bethe winner as she is not a player anymore, we'll in all eventuality see Camilla emerge as the positive wife to Charles in the end. And it's not of her doing but because that's how people work. And how papers work who cater to their readers.
__________________
'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.
  #1073  
Old 07-25-2008, 11:21 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: fort lauderdale, United States
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
According to the Royal Family website, Prince Charles is Prince and Great Steward of Scotland

"The Prince's new status made him The Duke of Cornwall. He also automatically took the Scottish titles Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland."

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page5647.asp

Mind you, I can't see Camilla being stuck with "Great Stewardess..." so maybe this set of titles doesn't carry across to the wife.
According to the Royal Famly website, that style of Prince and Great Steward of Scotland is unique to him alone as heir to the British throne. The proof of it being purely a personal style to one person alone is in the fact that his offspring are not anywhere acknowledged as "princes of Scotland". So why would his wife be? Perhaps you can also find a place on that or any other official website, which state specifically that the wife of the heir has all (without exception) the styles as consort?

So Camilla is not Princess of Scotland. {personal jab deleted - Elspeth}
  #1074  
Old 07-25-2008, 11:47 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by brandon View Post
So Camilla is not Princess of Scotland.....Snipped
Duchess of Cornwall - Title and Style

Her full titles after her marriage are (although she does not use them all) are:-
Her Royal Highness The Princess Charles, Princess of Wales and Countess of Chester, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Carrick, Baroness of Renfrew, Lady of the Isles, Princess of Scotland



I know this is a Wiki article but it does explain a little about the title Prince of Scotland and of course if that is Charles' title, his wife is entitled to the female version.
Prince of Scotland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The titles Prince and Great Steward of Scotland are normally conjoined in legislation.
Since the unification of England and Scotland in 1603, the titles have fallen from habitual use, the holder also from then on usually being Duke of Cornwall, Prince of Wales and Duke of Rothesay, which were preferred, and is now seldom referred to, except as the last in the conventional list of the Prince of Wales's titles.

  #1075  
Old 07-25-2008, 01:49 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monika_ View Post
I'm confused. Where do we disagree?
Sorry Monika, I think I was disgareeing with someone else or something... It's getting a little confusing in here.

Camilla will be Queen, IMO. She will have the title and will be known as HM Queen Camilla. That's the way it should be.
  #1076  
Old 07-25-2008, 02:38 PM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Binky View Post
Camilla will be Queen, IMO. She will have the title and will be known as HM Queen Camilla. That's the way it should be.
Precisely. Anything other than the correct and traditional title is ridiculous kowtowing to the Diana hagiographers. Yeah, she was a nice girl. Yeah, she did some good works. The reality? She is gone and dead and buried and the time of treading on eggshells is past. Camilla will, presuming Charles accedes, be Queen. Anything else is a slap in the face. The wife of the King is the Queen. Period.

I find it entertaining that nobody has suggested that any former wives of kings should have been called the asinine 'princess consort'.
  #1077  
Old 07-25-2008, 03:06 PM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,832
{ed. - Elspeth}


Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
I find it entertaining that nobody has suggested that any former wives of kings should have been called the asinine 'princess consort'.


I find it entertaining as well, if not indicative of how some people continue to view a situation that has long since passed. If Diana hadn't died, and Charles still chose to re-marry and that prospective bride just happened to be Camilla, I don't know if there would be half the acrimony as there is now, simply because Diana is deceased. It's almost as if they think Camilla is responsible for her death somehow.
__________________
"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever......"
  #1078  
Old 07-25-2008, 03:29 PM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
Quote:
It's almost as if they think Camilla is responsible for her death somehow.
Actually, I think the outcry would be even worse, had Diana lived. The thing is, people have fallen into this trap of worshiping Saint Diana, completely ignoring the fact that she too was screwing around; all three people involved in that whole mess were equally to blame. Unfortunately, many people view it as a Camilla vs. Diana issue--what about Charles? Why is there no vitriol for him?

Had Diana not been tragically killed, Charles and Camilla would still (I think) have gotten married, but the yammering of the hagiographers would be even louder in favour of the ridiculous 'princess consort' crap. "She was the rightful Queen!" they would yell. Except, y'know, she wasn't.

Camilla should and will be Queen. That's how it works. Any suggestion to the contrary is either pandering to the Saint Diana brigade, or is coming from a member of same.
  #1079  
Old 07-25-2008, 04:08 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
Actually, I think the outcry would be even worse, had Diana lived. The thing is, people have fallen into this trap of worshiping Saint Diana, completely ignoring the fact that she too was screwing around; all three people involved in that whole mess were equally to blame. Unfortunately, many people view it as a Camilla vs. Diana issue--what about Charles? Why is there no vitriol for him?

Had Diana not been tragically killed, Charles and Camilla would still (I think) have gotten married, but the yammering of the hagiographers would be even louder in favour of the ridiculous 'princess consort' crap. "She was the rightful Queen!" they would yell. Except, y'know, she wasn't.

Camilla should and will be Queen. That's how it works. Any suggestion to the contrary is either pandering to the Saint Diana brigade, or is coming from a member of same.
I think they have anyway. If memory serves, there was a Mail article a few months back talking about Camilla stealing Diana's crown.
  #1080  
Old 07-25-2008, 04:32 PM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
Yes.. but it would be louder if she were still alive. Her death was tragic, yes. The circumstances of her marriage were also pretty grim. But that should have no bearing on Camilla's title.

Especially since changing her title requires the consent of all the Commonwealth Realms. In their zeal to punish Camilla for perceived sins (and, again, not Charles for some reason), the Diana supporters have failed to realize the odious can of worms that would open.
__________________

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 chinese colorblindness commonwealth countries coronation customs daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex elizabeth ii family life family tree fashion and style gemstones genetics george vi gradenigo harry and meghan hello! henry viii highgrove history hochberg house of windsor japan history jewellery king juan carlos książ castle liechtenstein line of succession list of rulers medical monarchist movements monarchists monarchy mongolia nara period plantinum jubilee politics portugal prince harry queen elizabeth ii queen victoria royal ancestry solomon j solomon spanish royal family thai royal family tradition unfinished portrait united states united states of america wales welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:37 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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