The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1081  
Old 07-25-2008, 04:41 PM
Monika_'s Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 189
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.
First of all, I am offended by the term "[blanking] around." That language is uncalled for.

I for one have never worshipped "Saint Diana." I respected a woman who happened to have internal conflicts because of events that took place in her childhood. Who doesn't at some level? She faced up to some of these demons privately and even tried to use her struggles to inspire others. She was thrust onto the world stage at the age of 19 and took on more than any of us can begin to imagine, both publicly and privately. Her impact was/is undeniable.

As for the question of whether Charles and Camilla would have married if Diana was alive, well, I suspect that's a whole other thread. But since you raised the subject, IMHO, it would have been extremely difficult given what would have been the presence of an active and popular former wife.
__________________

__________________
"If I had said some things about her before 1997, she could have responded to them but, since she is not here, it would be very unfair to make a comment about her." Dr Hasnat Khan
  #1082  
Old 07-25-2008, 05:05 PM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
Quote:
First of all, I am offended by the term "[blanking] around." That language is uncalled for.
Oh please. That is precisely what all three of them were doing. To use any other language to describe it would be to grant an air of legitimacy to the adultery that all three were engaging in.

Quote:
She was thrust onto the world stage at the age of 19 and took on more than any of us can begin to imagine, both publicly and privately.
Hardly. She chose to be put on that stage.

But none of that matters. What we're discussing is Camilla's title. Which should and will be Queen, Diana worshippers notwithstanding.
__________________

  #1083  
Old 07-25-2008, 05:23 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
Which should and will be Queen, Diana worshippers notwithstanding.
Indeed. This whole "Princess Consort" nonsense seems to me like something concocted in the back rooms of Clarence House without doing any research or consultation with people who knew what they were doing at the Palace.
  #1084  
Old 07-25-2008, 05:49 PM
Monika_'s Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
Oh please. That is precisely what all three of them were doing. To use any other language to describe it would be to grant an air of legitimacy to the adultery that all three were engaging in.
Yes, all three did, but only one of the three couldn't decide what "love means". And from there came other things...

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
Hardly. She chose to be put on that stage.
Yes, just as any woman who loves a man and accepts the package that comes as part of the marriage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
But none of that matters. What we're discussing is Camilla's title.
I thought we were too.
__________________
"If I had said some things about her before 1997, she could have responded to them but, since she is not here, it would be very unfair to make a comment about her." Dr Hasnat Khan
  #1085  
Old 07-25-2008, 08:26 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
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.
She doesn't. Her Scottish titles are only styles as the wife of The Duke of Rothesay. Camilla is "HRH The Princess Charles, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Carrick, Baroness Renfrew and Princess of Scotland"
  #1086  
Old 07-25-2008, 09:12 PM
sirhon11234's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
the Diana supporters have failed to realize the odious can of worms that would open.
Some of the Diana supporters not all.
__________________
"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
  #1087  
Old 07-25-2008, 09:17 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,587
It's a bit too convenient, to me, to lay all of the responsibility of Camilla's reputation and past history on 'Diana Hagiographers'. On some level even the most ardent Camilla worshipers will need to accept the fact that Camilla is responsible for her own decisions, own actions, her own reputation. In the final analysis, regardless who the first Princess of Wales was, Camilla and Charles chose to have a long standing adulterous (to both the first Princess and to Mr. Parker-Bowles) relationship. Some people dislike/disrespect them for this. Not everything on this planet is about Diana. And Monika, I ust agree with you about the 'whatever love means' remark. Does anyone, in the light of hindsight, doubt that Charles knew exactly what 'love means'. He just meant, but with Camilla not with you.
  #1088  
Old 07-25-2008, 09:54 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,546
I always thought that Charles was trying to be romantic in his way when he said that (sort of like "I don't think we can know what true love is, but I think I found it," whether he meant it or not). Not until the marriage started to go sour did people start looking at it in that light.
  #1089  
Old 07-25-2008, 10:01 PM
Monika_'s Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
I always thought that Charles was trying to be romantic in his way when he said that (sort of like "I don't think we can know what true love is, but I think I found it," whether he meant it or not). Not until the marriage started to go sour did people start looking at it in that light.
Oh, I respectfully disagree. It only required a yes or no response. Diana was quite clear with her emphasis on 'of course,' as if to say that any other scenario was unthinkable. But for Charles it hit a nerve. He didn't expect the question and he couldn't think of a good answer.
__________________
"If I had said some things about her before 1997, she could have responded to them but, since she is not here, it would be very unfair to make a comment about her." Dr Hasnat Khan
  #1090  
Old 07-25-2008, 10:04 PM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
It's a bit too convenient, to me, to lay all of the responsibility of Camilla's reputation and past history on 'Diana Hagiographers'.
I lay precisely none of that responsibility there. However, the absurdity of this whole 'princess consort' affair is entirely and solely the result of pandering to the Diana worshippers. Unless someone can cite reputable sources which show that this has been done in the past? No? For crying out loud, even Henry VIII's multitude of wives were all called Queen. And there is simply no question that he was, shall we say, spreading his favours far and wide before, during, and after marriage.

In fact, it is much more common for Royals to hop from bed to bed than most people are comfortable accepting. The idea of lifelong monogamy is relatively new in those circles. Indeed, the whole concept of Royal (and, to a somewhat lesser extent) noble marriages is that they represent the transaction of property, titles, and duty. Once the heir (and a spare) was begat, most historic royal/noble couples would then proceed to have their own liaisons on the side. Look at how many Dukedoms were provided to illegitimate--even adulterous--children, for example.

Quote:
On some level even the most ardent Camilla worshipers will need to accept the fact that Camilla is responsible for her own decisions, own actions, her own reputation.
I'm neither a Camilla nor a Diana worshipper. I'm just sick of watching the Diana zealots continue to punish Camilla for something that, to be brutally frank, is much more Charles' responsibility than that of the two women involved. It takes two to tango, but it takes someone--in this case, the Heir to the Throne, who was deliberately abrogating his wedding vows--to get things started.

'Princess consort' is a nonsense. It is a title which means nothing. Not only that, but it absolutely contravenes centuries of Royal practice, tradition, and law. Women take dignities from their husbands. Period. When a woman marries a man, she takes his title until divorce (and subsequent remarriage) or widowhood (in which case she would generally become the Dowager Title of Wherever). That's it. That's how it works. 'Princess consort' is a ridiculous made-up bit of foolishness meant as a sop to those who are unable to accept that not only did Diana behave as poorly as Charles, but that they were divorced and she subsequently died in a tragic accident. Frankly--and I know I'm ranging a bit far afield here--this cult of Diana serves to cheapen her memory and legacy, not to celebrate it; portraying her as the poor little victim of Charles and Camilla is to completely remove any agency she had over her own life. Or, to put it another way:

Quote:
On some level even the most ardent Diana worshipers will need to accept the fact that Diana was responsible for her own decisions, own actions, her own reputation.
All of this handwaving about 'princess consort' is just that. As I have already pointed out, there is no precedent whatsoever for the title. As I have also pointed out, changing Camilla's title upon Charles' accession will require Acts of Parliament from all sixteen Commonwealth Realms. Every single one! Westminster may not act unilaterally in this case. And do you really think that the Palace would like to give Australia (which currently has the strongest republican movement within the Commonwealth) the perfect opening to abolish the monarchy? Charles' Accession alone will be more than enough; a tempest in a teapot over his wife's title will practically guarantee a republican victory in Australia. For goodness' sake, the republican talking points practically write themselves: "Is this all the monarchy is good for? They force us to pass an Act of Parliament so that Charles can call his bit on the side a Princess! Vote for an Australian Republic and be done with this Royal ridiculousness!"

Seriously. This is so silly.
  #1091  
Old 07-25-2008, 10:14 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monika_ View Post
Yes, all three did, but only one of the three couldn't decide what "love means". And from there came other things...
And what, pray tell, does Charles' statement 'whatever love means' have anything to do with what title Camilla gets?
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
  #1092  
Old 07-25-2008, 10:20 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monika_ View Post
It only required a yes or no response.
Charles has never been a yes or no kind of man, unlike his father who thinks extra words are a waste of good air.
  #1093  
Old 07-25-2008, 10:22 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
As I have also pointed out, changing Camilla's title upon Charles' accession will require Acts of Parliament from all sixteen Commonwealth Realms.
I don't think they've ever said they intend to change the title. From everything I can tell, they just want to brute force it and tell people to call her PC regardless of her actual title.
  #1094  
Old 07-25-2008, 10:24 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: fort lauderdale, United States
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel View Post
And what, pray tell, does Charles' statement 'whatever love means' have anything to do with what title Camilla gets?
Probably more than the Earl of Essex does. But actually what title she gets is entirely up to the monarch alone and doesn't have anything to do with anyone else.
  #1095  
Old 07-25-2008, 10:24 PM
Monika_'s Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 189
Well, I donít dispute Henry VIIIís legacy, but I thought we evolved a bit since then. And if royal marriages are still just a series of transactions, etc. (and I tend to disagree), then itís ďokayĒ as long as both parties understand that from day one.

As for the Princess Consort issue, I suspect it doesnít have as much to do with 'pandering' as it does with an understanding that the situation is awkward and sensitive, to put it mildly.
__________________
"If I had said some things about her before 1997, she could have responded to them but, since she is not here, it would be very unfair to make a comment about her." Dr Hasnat Khan
  #1096  
Old 07-25-2008, 10:32 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by brandon View Post
Probably more than the Earl of Essex does. But actually what title she gets is entirely up to the monarch alone and doesn't have anything to do with anyone else.
That's incorrect. The title of a Queen Consort can only be changed by Act of Parliament. So that's some 1300 people who have something to do with it (although 700 never actually come to vote in the Lords)
  #1097  
Old 07-25-2008, 10:33 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 8,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
... [snipped] It takes two to tango, but it takes someone--in this case, the Heir to the Throne, who was deliberately abrogating his wedding vows--to get things started.
... [snipped]
Who is guilty in this awkward situation? Perhaps, indecisiveness and inability of Prince Charles to protect the true love of his life in front of crowds yet again ... ill advice from the Clarence House... What could the most ardent and staunch fans of late Princess Diana do, if Duchess of Cornwall were announced to be Queen Consort?

  #1098  
Old 07-25-2008, 10:40 PM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
Precisely what about the situation requires flouting centuries of tradition and law?

Nothing. Royals have divorced before--lest you forget, that's the whole reason that the Anglican church even exists. Royals have had wives die before. And never has there been any ridiculous assertion that the new wife should not potentially get the title to which the previous wife was no longer entitled to--twice over, no less; divorce and death.

As of August 28, 1996, Diana no longer had any potential future claim to the title of Queen. Whether Charles married Camilla, Tiggy Legge-Bourke (thank God he didn't! I mean really, Queen Tiggy? Eeesh), or Miss Maria Lumpyfastener, 17 The Poplars, Brighton, his new wife would still be called Queen upon accession. Period.

The only circumstance under which I could even come close to understanding this absurdity would be if Charles had acceded to the throne before Diana's death, they had not divorced, and she had died while he was on the throne. In that case alone, I could see an argument for not making Camilla Queen.

Seeing as that's not the case, however.

Quote:
then it’s “okay” as long as both parties understand that from day one.


If you think that Diana wasn't sat down for a very long and very frank conversation about precisely how Royal life works--including such 'delicate' subjects as mistresses and so on, then I have a bridge to sell you. The Grey Men of Westminster would not allow someone like her to come so close to the throne without it being made extremely clear what was expected of her, and what she could expect in return. I would think that Camilla has had precisely the same conversation, as has Kate Middleton (yes, they're not even engaged, but it could turn out that way and they need to cover their bets).

But moving back to the issue: can you provide any citations which would indicate that this has been done in the past, ever? Any sources which would back up the concept of not giving a woman her husband's title? ('Duchess of Cornwall' doesn't count; Camilla still received the title of Pss of Wales, she just doesn't use it. As the wife of the Sovereign--who is unable to hold dignities from himself--there would be no lesser title that she could use.)
  #1099  
Old 07-25-2008, 10:43 PM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
That's incorrect. The title of a Queen Consort can only be changed by Act of Parliament. So that's some 1300 people who have something to do with it (although 700 never actually come to vote in the Lords)
Ermmm.. the Lords now only seats a few hundred, by election. Peerage no longer automatically confers a seat in Lords (except for 92 hereditary peers who were kept for the transition, including three who must retain their seats due to hereditary duties--Earl Marshal, Lord Chamberlain, and I forget the other).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al_bina
Who is guilty in this awkward situation?


All three of them, of course. But what people continually forget is that Charles made the vows; Charles broke them. Ditto Diana.

Quote:
What could the most ardent and staunch fans of late Princess Diana do, if Duchess of Cornwall were announced to be Queen Consort?


Wail and gnash their teeth, and then realize that oh hey, she becomes Queen as a matter of law and tradition, and anything else is an utter absurdity.
  #1100  
Old 07-25-2008, 10:45 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
Ermmm.. the Lords now only seats a few hundred, by election.
There are 628 life peers, all of whom are in the Lords still. No change has been made yet to that. The only elections for membership in the Lords are when hereditary peers with seats in the Lords die, the other hereditary peers of that party elect another hereditary peer to fill the vacancy.

Edit: There are also 92 Hereditary peers and 26 Lords Spiritual, for a grand total of 746.

http://www.parliament.uk/directories...omposition.cfm
__________________

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 11:02 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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