The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1221  
Old 11-15-2008, 07:53 PM
Lilla's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
My point was that she seems to prefer using the lesser title of Duchess of Cornwall.
Or she did so because of the sentiment some British still, at the time, had towards Princess Diana.

IMO it is time for those British to start looking forwards. Having Camilla as Queen when time comes will be of greater benefit to GB - then still mourning about someone beloved who died years ago.
__________________

  #1222  
Old 11-15-2008, 07:55 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,305
To me, the issue isn't that she's divorced. If if were a case that her husband cheated on her and so she divorced him, that would be a different matter. My opinion is that adultery is an extemely serious matter and shouldn't simply be swept under the carpet.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilla View Post
Oops....is this 1850 or 2008?


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.
__________________

  #1223  
Old 11-15-2008, 08:15 PM
Lilla's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
My opinion is that adultery is an extemely serious matter and shouldn't simply be swept under the carpet.
Adultery appears in marriages that doesn't function. I really don't care who committed the adultry - husband or wife. It wouldn't have been committed if the marriage worked.

Punishment for adultry isn't even 1850.......it's stepping right back into the dark Middel Ages.

If she committed adultry in her marriage to Charles it would be quit a different matter - then she was not worthy to be Queen.
  #1224  
Old 11-15-2008, 09:15 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
To me, the issue isn't that she's divorced. If if were a case that her husband cheated on her and so she divorced him, that would be a different matter. My opinion is that adultery is an extemely serious matter and shouldn't simply be swept under the carpet.
No one is sweeping it under the carpet - afterall the Prince of Wales admitted it publicly, as did his first wife. No one though seems to suggest that had Diana still be married to Charles that she wasn't worthy of being queen, despite being a serial adulterer.

Adultery is a matter between the couple within the marriage and shouldn't be something on which the rest of us have a say - advise yes, say no.

I know many wonderful people who have committed adultery. Some have worked through whatever was wrong in the marriage that saw them stray, some got divorced, either way I don't hold it against them.

The very basis of the Christian teachings is forgiveness of sins but it seems that the people who keep bringing up the church and Charles' future position in the Church of England are the ones who least practice that essential aspect of Christianity - forgetting one thing that is said in the Bible - 'vengeance is mine saith the Lord'. I am not pointing the finger at anyone here at all. But I am saying that if people are using the Church and the teachings of the church about the sanctity of marriage to stop Camilla becoming Queen then they should have a very good look at themselves and read their Bible a bit better and try some good old fashioned Christian forgiveness.
  #1225  
Old 11-15-2008, 09:53 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,978
Though currently in favour of the intended alternative, I think that if it were to remain an unsort topic in say 5 to 10 years from now (the Queen's health proceeding), then even I should be of the opinion that for what will be a comparatively short reign, that any such move to re-establish this particular reigning consorts title would be, by then, a most wearisome display of antipathy.

If Charles succeeded tomorrow then for certain, I'd like to see her created Princess Consort, purely for the reasons I voiced some time ago within this very thread. But as time progresses, I do contemplate the prerequisites of it's inference and needless to say, my reasons and the reasons behind the proposal are entirely dissimilar.

That would surely make for a rather bitter-sweet reality, I suppose you could say.
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
  #1226  
Old 11-15-2008, 09:54 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
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.
I honestly don't think most Parliamentarians in any of the countries involved care or really even know, myself. A few will froth at the mouth for a few weeks, a few will say just remove all of their titles and be gone with the lot, and the rest probably won't know that they should be involved.
  #1227  
Old 11-15-2008, 10:04 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 234
Hi,

It would seem that everyone involved in this marital highjinks was guilty.
Charles, Diana, Camilla & Andrew. They were all unfaithful to their marriage vows and yet, now, they all get along; apparently even Diana smiled and tolerated Camilla in the end. So, who are we to judge???

Andrew Parker Bowles was even at Prince Charles' birthday party; so they're all playing 'happy familys' now.....

If the Royal Family & government of the day want Camilla to be "Queen", then, she will be queen. And, we have nothing to say about it. End of story!!!

BTW, I really have no admiration for any of these characters and I hope that The Queen lives for at least 20 more years and a Queen Camilla & a King Charles won't matter..

Larry
  #1228  
Old 11-15-2008, 10:04 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,587
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.
I agree which is why I think The Archbishop of Canterbury might well decline to do the coronation. All things being equal, they were both adulterers and should be judged by the same standard, in regards to the crown and trhe church. Fair is fair.
  #1229  
Old 11-15-2008, 10:16 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
I agree which is why I think The Archbishop of Canterbury might well decline to do the coronation.
Why would he do that when he signed off on their marriage so publicly? If he was really that opposed to them, he wouldn't have done the blessing of the marriage.
  #1230  
Old 11-15-2008, 10:29 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
Yes, I'm aware of that. My point was that she seems to prefer using the lesser title of Duchess of Cornwall.
Which is certainly understandable. Diana died with the style of Princess of Wales and was the mother of the future King.

But once her husband becomes King, there is no reason why Camilla shouldn't be Queen.
  #1231  
Old 11-15-2008, 10:30 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
I agree which is why I think The Archbishop of Canterbury might well decline to do the coronation. All things being equal, they were both adulterers and should be judged by the same standard, in regards to the crown and trhe church. Fair is fair.
If the Archbishop refuses to crown Charles, that'll be the end of the CofE as the Established Church, so he'd better be very sure it's worth it. People aren't going to stand for the Church interfering in the succession and trying to force the issue of who becomes Head of State (because that's what a refusal to crown Charles would amount to).

As far as adultery by kings is concerned, I'll just refer you to the July 2008 newsletter. A lot of those illegitimate children were fathered by married men. The only kings not to have been crowned (Edward V and Edward VIII, unless I'm forgetting any) didn't commit adultery.
  #1232  
Old 11-15-2008, 10:33 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
I agree which is why I think The Archbishop of Canterbury might well decline to do the coronation. All things being equal, they were both adulterers and should be judged by the same standard, in regards to the crown and trhe church. Fair is fair.
He cannot "decline" to do the coronation. The Sovereign is Supreme Governor of the Church from the moment the previous Sovereign dies.

The Archbishop of Canterbury approved the marriage and blessed the couple after they asked for forgiveness. That should be sufficient and it's time to move on.
  #1233  
Old 11-15-2008, 10:46 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
I think there are some CofE bishops (or at least clerics) who have said that if they were Archbishop of Canterbury at Charles's accession, they'd refuse to officiate at the coronation. Easy to say, of course - I hope they aren't too far out of touch to realise that such an act would do a lot more damage to the church than to the king; it would be far more likely to result in disestablishment of the church than abdication of the king.

Since the Archbishop's allegiance is to God rather than to the monarch, I assume he could refuse to conduct the coronation ceremony if he felt strongly that the king wasn't worthy. I think there was speculation about whether Archbishop Lang would have refused to crown Edward VIII if he hadn't abdicated. Obviously this won't be a problem for Dr Williams, but he may not be Archbishop at the time of the next coronation. My guess is that if that's the case, his successor will be someone who hold views similar to his.
  #1234  
Old 11-15-2008, 10:52 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
Which is certainly understandable. Diana died with the style of Princess of Wales and was the mother of the future King.

But once her husband becomes King, there is no reason why Camilla shouldn't be Queen.
If public opinion is so opposed that it's considered by the government and senior civil service that it poses a danger to the survival of the monarchy, that would be a reason. I don't see it turning out that way, but I think they'd probably see Camilla's HM as a lesser sacrifice than risking the monarchy itself.
  #1235  
Old 11-15-2008, 11:40 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
I agree which is why I think The Archbishop of Canterbury might well decline to do the coronation. All things being equal, they were both adulterers and should be judged by the same standard, in regards to the crown and trhe church. Fair is fair.
Is adultery illegal in Britain?

If not then why refuse to crown him?

Charles has numerous ancestors who were serial adulterers who were crowned, and yes the Archbishops knew.

Diana and Camilla are the descendents of just such a serial adulterer in Charles II.

Charles made a promise to remain faithful to his wife, who also promised ot do the same. Neither did so. Edward VII made the same vow, as did George IV. They didn't do so and they were crowned and Edward was one of the best kings.

Breaking one vow doesn't mean that they aren't worthy to have another go - Jesus would be appalled I suspect that people won't forgive as he was always teaching forgiveness.

Forgiveness includes letting go and allowing a person to get on with their lives and not punish them unreasonably, which suggesting that Charles isn't fit to be king or Camilla fit to be queen because they made the mistake of not marrying each other in the first place, to my mind is doing.
  #1236  
Old 11-16-2008, 04:19 AM
QUEENECE29's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Istanbul, Turkey
Posts: 1,991
If Charles becomes King, to suppose Camilla becomes Queen... Why not?
  #1237  
Old 11-16-2008, 04:27 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
IMHO the really interesting question is, to follow Elspeth's line of thought: how many monarchists or non-interested Britons ar egoing to become republicans 8and active at that9 if Charles and Camilla are crowned like tradition demands? And how many monarchists are going to oppose the government if tradition is changed? As long as these two groups are on par or the first one is considered small, nothing will change and Camilla will be crowned ueen. It is a difference between opinion polls and direct political movement when there is no direct votation possibility is involved and the politicians are well aware of that.
__________________
'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.
  #1238  
Old 11-16-2008, 04:58 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,228
For those who truly believe in having a Monarchy I cannot see how they can turn round and become republicans just because the person on the throne does not suit them. For those who truly believe in republicanism, I cannot see what difference it would make to them who is on the throne as they will disagree anyway. In a Monarchy, you can't change the line of succession to suit the majority of people or change the heir to whoever AT THE TIME is more popular. This would make it too political and we would end up with rather expensive presidential elections!
  #1239  
Old 11-16-2008, 06:14 AM
wymanda's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
If public opinion is so opposed that it's considered by the government and senior civil service that it poses a danger to the survival of the monarchy, that would be a reason. I don't see it turning out that way, but I think they'd probably see Camilla's HM as a lesser sacrifice than risking the monarchy itself.
Elspeth, I really don't think enough people in Britain care. There would surely be more of an uproar if money & parliamentary time was spent passing the relevant legislation to make 'Milla "Princess Consort" when there is so much more that needs legislative attention.
__________________
Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
  #1240  
Old 11-16-2008, 07:26 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
There would surely be more of an uproar if money & parliamentary time
In all seriousness, I hardly think that would be of concern to the public.
__________________

__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
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 archie mountbatten-windsor asia birth britain britannia british british royal family buckingham palace camilla's family camilla parker bowles carolin china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing clarence house colorblindness crown jewels customs dresses duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family life fashion and style gemstones genetics gradenigo gustaf vi adolf harry and meghan hello! henry viii history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs jack brooksbank japan japan history kensington palace king edward vii lili mountbatten-windsor list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists monarchy names nara period plantinum jubilee pless politics prince harry queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen louise queen victoria royal ancestry solomon j solomon spanish royal family st edward sussex suthida swedish queen taiwan tradition united states of america wales welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:32 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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