The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1201  
Old 11-13-2008, 12:23 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post
The question is if Charles actually wants to announce that she'll be known as HRH The Princess Consort. I personally can't see him as doing that - it would be a personal defeat if he is not able to accord his legal wife her legal title. Of course when this "it is intended..." was published, they did it for the sake of the marriage and the right of Camilla to be known as HRH but I seriously doubt it was Charles' idea and that he whole-heartedly supported it. It was a means to an end and nothing more.

It is no secret that what Charles and the people of his office at St. James' and what the queen and her people of her office at BP think is most of the time not the same. Once Charles' is king, only his opinion counts and the guys at BP are out of business. I doubt that it is in the interest of the government to insist on a change in tradition, Charles won't want that either, so it will just be the media and we have no idea how the media will react in the direct aftermath of HM's death.
I'm not sure it's only Charles's choice. While this isn't a popularity contest and results of polls aren't necessarily all that relevant, the royal family has hopefully learned a few lessons about the dangers of trying to do major things that are really unpopular. If the government and the senior royal advisors really believe that forcing the issue of Camilla being known as HM the Queen Consort (and being crowned and whatever) will do serious damage to the institution of the monarchy, Charles might not have much choice. This is the obstacle that Edward VIII ran into - he was concerned about what he wanted when he was King, whereas the government and the civil servants were more concerned with preserving the institution of monarchy and the position of King in general; the identity of the person in the position was a lot less important to them than the stability of the institution itself.
__________________

  #1202  
Old 11-13-2008, 08:17 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
I'm not sure it's only Charles's choice. While this isn't a popularity contest and results of polls aren't necessarily all that relevant, the royal family has hopefully learned a few lessons about the dangers of trying to do major things that are really unpopular. If the government and the senior royal advisors really believe that forcing the issue of Camilla being known as HM the Queen Consort (and being crowned and whatever) will do serious damage to the institution of the monarchy, Charles might not have much choice. This is the obstacle that Edward VIII ran into - he was concerned about what he wanted when he was King, whereas the government and the civil servants were more concerned with preserving the institution of monarchy and the position of King in general; the identity of the person in the position was a lot less important to them than the stability of the institution itself.
While you might not feel that polls or public opinion are relevant, I think to ignore this week's poll about the approval rating of the idea of Camilla being Queen is 17%, down 10 points in the last year, would be very dangerous to the future of the monarchy. For Charles to arrogantly force upon the British people someone who has an approval rating far lower than GWB, is risking a lot. They might well say leave and take her with you.
__________________

  #1203  
Old 11-13-2008, 10:58 PM
jcbcode99's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Richmond Area, United States
Posts: 1,979
I think that it is ridiculous to think that Camilla will be anything less than Queen--regardless of that statement of pacification issued by the Palace when Charles and Camilla were married. The Monarchy is an institution that holds dear long standing traditions and honors. It is unimaginable to think that, due to public opinion over Diana's never to be assumed role of Queen, that Camilla should have to resort to the use of a leser title. If this is to be intended, that she will be the Princess Consort (a title which does not suit her maturity, in my opinion) then someone better get some paperwork ready because it will be next to impossible to demote her once QEII passes. Incidentally, if this were the true intention, then I think that a Letters Patent would have been passed before now that stated that Camilla would never receive the title of Queen and would be the Princess Consort---but such legislation has not been seen. And, Camilla is wearing the jewels of former Queens (Queen Mary, and QEQM) in official capacities. It seems to me that the lack of information indicates that she will be Queen.
__________________
Janet

"We make a living by what we do; we make a life by what we give" Winston Churchill
  #1204  
Old 11-14-2008, 12:35 AM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,305
I wonder if this whole lesser-title business is because of the irregular marriage issue. They weren't married in church, which is an unusual thing for the heir to the throne. Perhaps some sort of deal was worked out behind the scenes. Too bad I likely won't be around when the time comes for the correspondence about the wedding negotiations are available.
  #1205  
Old 11-14-2008, 05:55 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
While you might not feel that polls or public opinion are relevant, I think to ignore this week's poll about the approval rating of the idea of Camilla being Queen is 17%, down 10 points in the last year, would be very dangerous to the future of the monarchy. For Charles to arrogantly force upon the British people someone who has an approval rating far lower than GWB, is risking a lot. They might well say leave and take her with you.
If polls were 100% correct 100% of the time, the UK would no longer be members of the EU. When the time comes, I believe the majority of the British people will be pleased to see Charles as King, with Camilla as Queen Consort at his side!

What George Bush and his approval rating has to do with anything I'm not sure, monarchy is not quite the same as politics, even less so than American politics.
  #1206  
Old 11-14-2008, 06:07 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
I wonder if this whole lesser-title business is because of the irregular marriage issue. They weren't married in church, which is an unusual thing for the heir to the throne. Perhaps some sort of deal was worked out behind the scenes. Too bad I likely won't be around when the time comes for the correspondence about the wedding negotiations are available.
The mess about the title was I believe an attempt to calm the apparent hysteria of the Diana fans who were threatening demonstrations by 1000's and of course the not very Christian Christians. Divorce didn't happen, it was unthinkable especially for Royal couples.

Times change and the monarchy has attempted to change with it.
  #1207  
Old 11-14-2008, 08:17 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
The mess about the title was I believe an attempt to calm the apparent hysteria of the Diana fans who were threatening demonstrations by 1000's and of course the not very Christian Christians. Divorce didn't happen, it was unthinkable especially for Royal couples.

Times change and the monarchy has attempted to change with it.
I believe you are right in your analysis. The hysteria was pretty wild. I wouldn't mind betting that with the objective distance of 10 years after the death of Diana, not a few, really quite ordinary decent people, are aghast and more than a little ashamed of their behaviour back then.

As to the polls? As you have already noted, it is more than numbers. Unless it is carried out by a scrupulously credible "independent" specialist agency, the way questions are couched dictate the kind of response required. We are all then manipulated by the "Poll" results.

As for the not very Christain Christians? I believe the Archbishop of Canterbury has a lot to answer for. In miriad ways the CofE has moved with the times, but, in this very normal instance, he took an express train back to 1935.

I am not sure about divorce in Great Britain but here in my country the civil laws regarding divorce for the man in the street were greatly liberalised with WWII. Most churches took a mere 30-40 years to "get with the programme".
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
  #1208  
Old 11-14-2008, 08:30 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
I wonder if this whole lesser-title business is because of the irregular marriage issue. They weren't married in church, which is an unusual thing for the heir to the throne. Perhaps some sort of deal was worked out behind the scenes. Too bad I likely won't be around when the time comes for the correspondence about the wedding negotiations are available.
I can well imagine that as a decent man Charles realised that asking for a church wedding would create a difficult situation for the church officials, especially as he himself probably was well aware that the main point was not that Camilla was divorced but that he wanted to marry the woman who had been exposed by the then wife as the reason for the marital problems. Which, even if it is not the whole truth, is sufficient enough to give clerics some serious headaches.

Plus Charles with his known notion of preferring to be the "defender of faiths" rather than the "defender of the faith" might equally not been overly keen on being married in church but might have preferred to show that the civil wedding is an option for all britons including their future king. who knows...
__________________
'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.
  #1209  
Old 11-15-2008, 08:45 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Taipei, Taiwan
Posts: 2
Devorsed!!!

I think that Camilla is doing a great job, but as to the title I firmly believe that the King or Queen should be the devender of the faith. As Camilla is a devorsed woman she should or cannot be queen. Now, I'm sure that Prince Charles if he is king can change these historical royal laws, but this should not be to his or his wife's benifit, but to the kings and queens who will reighn after him.
  #1210  
Old 11-15-2008, 03:49 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
There is no doubt that when Charles succeeds to the throne, Camilla will legally be Queen. If Charles takes the view at the time (despite what was said at time of the engagement of C&C) that he would prefer that she be known as Princess Consort, he can issue letters patent to the effect. Legally, she would continue to be Queen but just be referred to as Princess Consort - just like the current arrangement where she is Princess of Wales, but prefers to use one of her lesser titles.

Some might argue of how she might use a lesser title that does not exist. As King, Charles will be font of all honour, and there will be nothing stopping him from creating the title of Princess Consort for her to use.
The only problem with this scenario is that once her husband is King, Camilla can only be styled as Queen. The wife of the King is Queen Consort, not a Princess.

Camilla holds no titles of her own, other than what flows to her as Charles' wife. Being known as "HRH The Princess Consort" requires him to create a title via letters patent that essentially grants her a title and rank separate from him in her own right.

Since she will legally be Queen, Parliament would have to intervene with legislation permitting her to reliniquish her title and rank in favor of a new one created by The Sovereign.
  #1211  
Old 11-15-2008, 04:04 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
The only problem with this scenario is that once her husband is King, Camilla can only be styled as Queen. The wife of the King is Queen Consort, not a Princess.

Camilla holds no titles of her own, other than what flows to her as Charles' wife. Being known as "HRH The Princess Consort" requires him to create a title via letters patent that essentially grants her a title and rank separate from him in her own right.
Why?

"HM The King requests that HM The Queen be known informally as HRH The Princess Consort."

Who's going to stop them? There's no criminal intent, so I assume it isn't illegal. OK, so it doesn't make a particle of sense, but the way they've been faffing around with styles and titles recently, I can't see that being a deal-breaker.
  #1212  
Old 11-15-2008, 04:04 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacknch View Post
I think there is a distinction between the words "title" (the name of the person) and "rank" (how high up the heirarchy they are). Therefore, the Duke of Windsor's wife became the Duchess of Windsor automatically on their marriage as is customery for a woman to take her husband's title, but the HRH is the rank is I believe a personal gift of the monarch and is not automatically added on to the title as a right.
Not true. The style and title flow together with the appropriate rank upon marriage. Wallis married a son of the Sovereign and was automatically entitled to the title of "HRH The Princess Edward". Since George VI created his brother a royal duke, his wife was entitled to share his rank as a royal duchess and by styled "HRH The Duchess of Windsor".

The justification for the 1937 Letters Patent was that Edward had renounced his future descendants' rights to the throne through the Act of Abdication, in return for being exempted from the Royal Marriages Act. As such, George VI issued letters patent limiting the rank and style of HRH to his brother alone, taking the position that The Duke's wife and future children would not be members of the royal family.

There is no question The Sovereign had the right to issue letters patent denying royal rank to The Duke's wife. The Act of Abdication was an extraordinary breach in the line of succession.
  #1213  
Old 11-15-2008, 04:08 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lancaster View Post
I think that Camilla is doing a great job, but as to the title I firmly believe that the King or Queen should be the devender of the faith. As Camilla is a devorsed woman she should or cannot be queen. Now, I'm sure that Prince Charles if he is king can change these historical royal laws, but this should not be to his or his wife's benifit, but to the kings and queens who will reighn after him.
As the very first 'Defender of the Faith' was divorced not once but twice, divorce shouldn't enter into the equation at all.

There is no legislation that says that a Queen can't be divorced.

In 1936, there was an argument put forward that the people wouldn't accept a twice divorced woman (as part of a smoke screen to get rid of an unsatisfactory, to some anyway, king). The times then were also that divorced people had a stigma attached to them. These days about 1/3 marriages end in divorce and there is no stigma attached.

There is no reason why a divorced woman can't be Queen or Queen Consort.

Camilla should be Queen as she would be the wife of the King. There is no other qualification needed.
  #1214  
Old 11-15-2008, 04:09 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
Why?

"HM The King requests that HM The Queen be known informally as HRH The Princess Consort."

Who's going to stop them? There's no criminal intent, so I assume it isn't illegal.
Parliament and the Crown Commonwealth must approve any change in the title and succession of the monarchy, including The King's wife. If they agree after consultation with the PM there is no issue, then fine.

I think they will be reluctant to allow a precedent to be created without legislation being passed from a constitutional standpoint.
  #1215  
Old 11-15-2008, 04:16 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,305
Perhaps I'll throw a spanner into the works. Whether or not it was Diana fanatics who contributed to the hysteria about C & C's wedding, the fact is that Camilla broke life-long vows that she made before God and her family and friends when she had an extra-marital affair with Prince Charles. Had Charles never been married, Camilla's adultery would still be wrong. Things can be forgiven by the parties involved, but there are still consequences to actions. Camilla makes a fine support to Prince Charles; I certainly don't disagree with that. However, there's something about her receiving the title of Queen that bothers me. The title of Princess Consort is in keeping with the role that she's carved out as the Duchess of Cornwall--being a supportive presence even without the Princess of Wales title and all the formality that's involved with it.
  #1216  
Old 11-15-2008, 04:22 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
Charles broke the same vows, though. I don't think it's fair to say that Charles can be King but Camilla needs to be punished with a lower position, especially when it's the monarch, not the consort, who's taking on the position of Supreme Governor of the Church.
  #1217  
Old 11-15-2008, 06:12 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,305
I don't think that consequence is the same as punishment. I think that she's been "punished" enough, having been held up to ridicule for years and horrible cartoons made of her, etc. I've had the impression, though I could be wrong, that Camilla wants to stay in the background and not take the titles that are her right by marriage. In some ways, I think that she's more PR-savvy than the Prince of Wales.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
Charles broke the same vows, though. I don't think it's fair to say that Charles can be King but Camilla needs to be punished with a lower position, especially when it's the monarch, not the consort, who's taking on the position of Supreme Governor of the Church.
  #1218  
Old 11-15-2008, 07:11 PM
wymanda's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
--being a supportive presence even without the Princess of Wales title and all the formality that's involved with it.
She is not "without the Princess of Wales title". She has chosen not to use it. The moment she & Charles were pronounced husband and wife she took on all of his rank, style & title. That is Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothsay, Countess of Chester etc etc etc............
__________________
Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
  #1219  
Old 11-15-2008, 07:35 PM
Lilla's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lancaster View Post
As Camilla is a devorsed woman she should or cannot be queen.
Oops....is this 1850 or 2008?

I am a Dane and as such it isn't my business to interfere with the affairs of the British. But having a King whos wife didn't have the title of Queen, but something else....IMO would be presenting her to the rest of the world as being unworthy of that title.

Being devorsed IMO isn't something that makes a person unworthy. Not at all.

Continuing to maintain a marriage that dosen't work is unworthy - it is actually plain stupid.

Of course a devorsed woman can become Queen, if she has the qualities needed and does wonderful work for her country.
  #1220  
Old 11-15-2008, 07:46 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,305
Yes, I'm aware of that. My point was that she seems to prefer using the lesser title of Duchess of Cornwall.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wymanda View Post
She is not "without the Princess of Wales title". She has chosen not to use it. The moment she & Charles were pronounced husband and wife she took on all of his rank, style & title. That is Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothsay, Countess of Chester etc etc etc............
__________________

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 11:01 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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