The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1141  
Old 07-26-2008, 03:59 PM
sirhon11234's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,453
There are no winners, two young men were robbed of their mother and a woman was killed in the prime of her life. Charles and Camilla should thank their lucky stars that they are together, healthy, alive and happy.
__________________

__________________
"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
  #1142  
Old 07-26-2008, 04:02 PM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monika_ View Post
Sorry, but I've expressed warmer feelings for my pets. From a woman's point of view (granted one) that would hurt.
Yes, you're right, but Diana decided that this was enough for her. Even at her age of 19 she must have realised that Charles was complicated. She must have realised that he brought a lot of emotional baggage with him, while not being free to purchase a lifestyle that could have helped him to overcome the baggage. So in a way she brought it up on herself - because she believed in dreams instead of evaluate realities. I agree her family should have helped her and I bet the Windsors counted on that because noone wanted that disaster.

Back to Camilla: she is going to be Charles' queen - after all: who in fact is reading these offical statements, who recalls them once Charles ascends to the throne? It was printed back then and it helped to keep things in order, but: nothing is as old as the paper of yesterday and today we have an heir to the Throne and his wife, who will be king and wife some day. And the king's wife is the queen.
__________________

__________________
'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.
  #1143  
Old 07-26-2008, 04:09 PM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirhon11234 View Post
There are no winners, two young men were robbed of their mother and a woman was killed in the prime of her life. Charles and Camilla should thank their lucky stars that they are together, healthy, alive and happy.
Of course you are right. But I meant according to the way media and public perspective works. And thus Diana is old news while Charles and Camilla, as the living inhabitants of that august space of public interest, are able to produce new news.

Okay, they are an aged couple, so it is still interesting to compare "old Camilla" to "young Diana" in pics when it comes to something Diana did once as wife of Charles and Camilla does now. But once there is William's princess and Charles' ascension to the throne, we'll see Diana's pics less and less and not in comparison to Camilla anymore. Because that would be "old news" indeed.
__________________
'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.
  #1144  
Old 07-26-2008, 04:34 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post
Dimbleby, page 280 (hardcover edition by Little, Brown & Company): "In private, he confided to one of his friends that though he did not yet love her, she was lovable and warm-hearted, and he was sure he could fall in love with her."

I think that Charles was completely at a loss about what love means and that that fact terrified him. He had always been an man caged in by his duties and the expectations of the people surrounding him and probably he only saw marriages like the upper class had them (once you share interests - whatever they are - love will grow if you like each other in the beginning) or like the one of his parents ("I immediately knew this was him" - or so, I imagine...) and couldn't trust the first and didn't find the second. So he tried to settle for the first, not realising there was a third way. But once he realised that, he grabbed it: and Camilla, no matter what she wanted.... Because I doubt she wants to be queen. She loves Charles and she is okay with being his wife and she will be his queen but we have yet to find out how much she sacrificed for Charles. But from my experience of a nice, quiet, comfortable life as a member of polite society (which still exists!) she sacrificed a lot. Camilla had her cake and enjoyed it pre-marriage. But now she is envied the cake she had to exchange for her former one - which is much more decorated but less tasty IMHo.
I think Charles was just uncomfortable saying I love her in public - just like my brother, who really loves his wife but who would never say it in front of strangers.

I don't think he's ever said he loved Camilla in public either and we know he obviously does.

Quote:
Yes, you're right, but Diana decided that this was enough for her. Even at her age of 19 she must have realised that Charles was complicated. She must have realised that he brought a lot of emotional baggage with him, while not being free to purchase a lifestyle that could have helped him to overcome the baggage. So in a way she brought it up on herself - because she believed in dreams instead of evaluate realities. I agree her family should have helped her and I bet the Windsors counted on that because noone wanted that disaster.
They all should have known better. Charles should have known better when Diana was tagging around him and her sister Sarah on dates and Sarah was showing signs of anorexia. Diana should have known better when she saw how heartlessly Charles broke up with her sister Sarah. She should have gotten fair warning of Charles' circle of friends and estimated how well or badly she fit in. The Queen Mother should have known better that for her lady in waiting to testify against her own daughter in a child custody case was bound to scar the children of that custody case (including Diana) forever. Both Diana's father as equerry and her grandmother as lady in waiting should have known the heavy restrictions and isolation that being a member of the Royal Family ensued.

I think they all knew the truth to some extent but they conveniently ignored the warning signs. And they all in one way or another paid the price. But I think now its time to stop making people pay the price.
__________________
"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
  #1145  
Old 07-26-2008, 04:47 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post
The one who's still there when all others have chucked out of the game or been killed.
yesbutyesBUT...

...you aren't a winner in the Darwinian sense unless you leave offspring. Which C&C didn't. And this isn't an invitation to start speculating about Tom Parker Bowles's ancestry, just in case anyone has any bright ideas...

So really, Darwin-wise, Diana was the winner, as indicated by all the honours people think she should receive (or have received) in her capacity as the mother of the future king.

Not that that has anything to do with Camilla's title, of course. I still think that Buckingham Palace is planning to be caught by surprise at the accession by the information that Camilla has to be Queen because the King's wife can't be anything else. Then if public opinion is mostly negative, they might try the "but you can call Her Majesty by the unofficial title Princess Consort if you like" subterfuge, and if it's negative enough that a republican revolution looks possible, they might go to the extent of doing the necessary to deprive her of the HM title and then create her HRH Princess Consort in her own right. If people generally seem to be OK with Queen Camilla, I think the "will be known as Princess Consort" nonsense will die a well-deserved death.

The honest thing would be for them to deal with this nonsense now (the most honest thing would have been to deal with it at the time of the engagement or wedding), but I think they're banking on being able to claim that they've been caught by surprise. I hope The Times then points out that even if the royal advisors didn't know all along, the regular contributors to the Royal Forums British forum could have told them.
  #1146  
Old 07-26-2008, 05:33 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
I still think that Buckingham Palace is planning to be caught by surprise at the accession by the information that Camilla has to be Queen because the King's wife can't be anything else. Then if public opinion is mostly negative, they might try the "but you can call Her Majesty by the unofficial title Princess Consort if you like" subterfuge, and if it's negative enough that a republican revolution looks possible, they might go to the extent of doing the necessary to deprive her of the HM title and then create her HRH Princess Consort in her own right. If people generally seem to be OK with Queen Camilla, I think the "will be known as Princess Consort" nonsense will die a well-deserved death.

The honest thing would be for them to deal with this nonsense now (the most honest thing would have been to deal with it at the time of the engagement or wedding), but I think they're banking on being able to claim that they've been caught by surprise.
They cannot claim to be "surprised" because the hoopla started immediately among members of Parliament and constitutional scholars with the announcement of "the intention" for Camilla to be known as Princess Consort when Charles becomes King.

After a few days of questions, including experts noting in the newspapers she cannot be anything but Queen unless an Act of Parliament prevents it, the Lord Chancellor finally stated "it's possible legislation will be needed to tidy things up when the time comes", and Blair commenting, "the question is what her style and title will be upon marriage" and going on to note it will not be a morganatic marriage.

I do not think they will get away with the nonsense of "she is Queen Camilla, but please call her HRH The Princess Consort instead". That would be too ludicruous for a Queen to be addressed as Your Royal Highness and styled as a Princess when she is no longer the wife of a Prince.
  #1147  
Old 07-26-2008, 05:57 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
That would be too ludicruous for a Queen to be addressed as Your Royal Highness and styled as a Princess when she is no longer the wife of a Prince.
To people that know the difference. I don't think most people do.
  #1148  
Old 07-26-2008, 06:05 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
... Snipped.... Then if public opinion is mostly negative,
I think we all know how fickle public opinion is. In or around 1998 the opinion polls all showed that 'people' thought Camilla should not marry Charles, at the time of the wedding the opinion had changed and the same polls showed support for the marriage, but not for her becoming Queen. The polls were, if I remember correctly Mori and YouGov and were posted on the forum. Even if you question the reliability of the polls, which I do, they did show a change of opinion in a very short time, so given another 3-5 years many more would probably question why. if Camilla is not going to be Queen.

Add to that the cost and IMO, most of UK taxpayers would question the need for legislation to change her title anyway.

  #1149  
Old 07-26-2008, 06:08 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
To people that know the difference. I don't think most people do.
Exactly. Most people won't see it as any different from the current situation of "she's really Princess of Wales but she's elected to be known as Duchess of Cornwall."

You can tell people till you're blue in the face that she actually is Duchess of Cornwall whereas there's no way for a Queen to also be a Princess, but I have a feeling it won't matter to most people. I mean, there's got to be a reason why the "will be known as Princess Consort" stuff is still on the websites of the royal family and the Prince of Wales. If the Queen drops dead tomorrow, they're going to be stuck with it, and I assume they know that.
  #1150  
Old 07-26-2008, 08:09 PM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
Quote:
Add to that the cost and IMO, most of UK taxpayers would question the need for legislation to change her title anyway
Not to mention the other fifteen Commonwealth Realms. Honestly, forcing this situation is a very, very dangerous thing for them to be doing, as it opens the doors to republican movements taking hold.
  #1151  
Old 07-26-2008, 08:38 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,978
I wonder if Camilla wishes to be known as Princess Consort. None of us here would know of course, so assumptions are pointless, but it would be so interesting to know what she makes of it.

Somehow, I can't invision her to be upset by it at all.

One of those unanswerable questions...
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
  #1152  
Old 07-26-2008, 10:00 PM
kimebear's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Albany, United States
Posts: 1,380
I'll probably be jumped on from an intellectual point of view for asking this question, but, what about Duchess of Lancaster? I'll wait here:
  #1153  
Old 07-26-2008, 10:06 PM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
It would still be morganatic. The title of 'Duke of Lancaster' isn't substantive; it's an honorary tradition recognizing the Sovereign's titular ownership of their source of private income.
  #1154  
Old 07-26-2008, 10:27 PM
kimebear's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Albany, United States
Posts: 1,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
It would still be morganatic. The title of 'Duke of Lancaster' isn't substantive; it's an honorary tradition recognizing the Sovereign's titular ownership of their source of private income.
Honorary or not, the sovereign (of either sex) holds the title Duke of Lancaster. I don't agree with the Princess Consort suggestion. I was, however, pointing out that if you are just going to create a title out of thin air, at least this one could actually come from something that already exists. What is the difference between HRH The Princess Consort or HRH The Duchess of Lancaster?. Both would include the same style, but Duchess of Lancaster can actually be derived from a title that Charles would hold as King.
  #1155  
Old 07-26-2008, 10:49 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimebear View Post
Honorary or not, the sovereign (of either sex) holds the title Duke of Lancaster.
The sovereign cannot hold a title from him or herself. The sovereign uses it out of tradition, but strictly speaking there is no Duke of Lancaster, just a duchy.
  #1156  
Old 07-26-2008, 10:52 PM
kimebear's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Albany, United States
Posts: 1,380
There's no Prince Consort current either. The Duke of Edinburgh is a Prince and he is the consort of the Queen, but he is not the Prince Consort.
  #1157  
Old 07-27-2008, 12:56 AM
Ella Kay's Avatar
Courtier
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Anywhere, United States
Posts: 952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Royale View Post
I wonder if Camilla wishes to be known as Princess Consort. None of us here would know of course, so assumptions are pointless, but it would be so interesting to know what she makes of it.

Somehow, I can't invision her to be upset by it at all.

One of those unanswerable questions...
I really doubt that she's bothered much by the whole debate either, Madame Royale. She seems very happy being the Duchess of Cornwall, and so I'd wager that she'll be satisfied with whatever title Charles and Britain decide to give her when he becomes king. I have a feeling that being married to the man she loves is more important to her than becoming queen ever would be.
__________________

"I have to be seen to be believed."
HM The Queen
  #1158  
Old 07-27-2008, 01:39 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
Exactly. Most people won't see it as any different from the current situation of "she's really Princess of Wales but she's elected to be known as Duchess of Cornwall."
And there are probably a great number of people who, having been born since 1952, don't remember a time where the monarch's spouse was equal in style and title to the monarch.
  #1159  
Old 07-27-2008, 01:53 AM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
Quote:
There's no Prince Consort current either. The Duke of Edinburgh is a Prince and he is the consort of the Queen, but he is not the Prince Consort.
This is a different situation, for a couple of reasons.

First of all, men do not derive titles from their wives. So no matter what, Philip would have needed a title created for him, which is why he was created DoE on his wedding day; by that point it was pretty clear that Elizabeth was going to be on the throne sooner or later.

Second, Queens Regnant are a relatively rare occurrence in the UK: Elizabeths I and II, Anne, Victoria. One could make an argument for Maud, I suppose, but it's not really germane. As such, there is less precedent for how one should title and style the husband of the Queen. Elizabeth I, of course, never married; Anne's husband was a Prince (of Denmark, coincidentally enough) in his own right and was later created HRH Duke of Cumberland; Victoria's Albert, of course, was created a Prince, and later Prince Consort. Similar to Anne's husband, Philip was a Prince in his own right, though he renounced all his titles when he entered the Royal Navy--which is why the title needed to be created for him.

Third, one could reasonably argue that given Victoria's massive presence in British Royal history that it is unlikely that any future Prince consort will be titled as such, in deference to the memory of Albert.

Fourth, the difficulty of titling the husband of a Queen is this: morganatic marriages are not permitted in the UK. But, and here's the problem, the husband of a Queen cannot be called King (or even King Consort) as under rules of precedence in the UK, males outrank females of the same rank. (I'm not sure how that works with suo jure peeresses; perhaps someone else can enlighten). Thus, even with EIIR as Sovereign, titling Philip 'King' (consort) would in a very technical sense imply that he outranked her.

However.

None of these issues apply to Camilla. Here's why:

1) Wives derive titles from their husbands. That will make her Queen.
2) Kings Regnant are not an unusual occurrence in the UK; it's the usual thing. And the subject of their wives' titles has long been established: Queen.
3) There is no similar situation in all of history, let alone an example of loving devotion such as Albert, for any precedent to be set to deny the wife of a King her rightful title. That will make Camilla Queen.
4) A marriage between a King and a Queen is not morganatic, and is therefore not only allowed but required. That will make Camilla Queen.

Quote:
And there are probably a great number of people who, having been born since 1952, don't remember a time where the monarch's spouse was equal in style and title to the monarch.
True.. but see above for why that happened and why it won't happen again unless William only has girls (or one of his descendants does, or they move to strict primogeniture).
  #1160  
Old 07-27-2008, 02:12 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
I'm not sure how that works with suo jure peeresses; perhaps someone else can enlighten.
Suo jure peeresses are treated as if they were married to a man holding their title. So in the ladies' order of precedence it goes Baroness A (her husband's title created in 1300), suo jure Baroness B (her title created 1310), and then Baroness C (her husband's title created in 1360). Or including everyone: Baron A, Baroness A, Baroness B, Baron C, Baroness C.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
True.. but see above for why that happened and why it won't happen again unless William only has girls (or one of his descendants does, or they move to strict primogeniture).
I know, but I strongly doubt that is common knowledge.
__________________

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 asia asian british british royal family 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 daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii family tree genetics george vi gradenigo harry and meghan hello! highgrove history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs japan japanese imperial family japan history jewellery kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos książ castle liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers meghan markle monarchists monarchy mongolia pless politics portugal prince harry queen elizabeth ii queen victoria royal ancestry solomon j solomon spanish royal family st edward sussex suthida thai royal family tradition unfinished portrait united states united states of america welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:32 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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