The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1301  
Old 11-23-2008, 03:34 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Merseyside, United Kingdom
Posts: 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menarue View Post
Me too, something like that being made public about me would make me at least try and find a Trappist order for women...... I don´t think I would ever be able to show my face in public again, but then he is Royal.....nothing, no stupid thing he says or does can change that. He is Royal and that is that. As CasiraghiTrio said , an ordinary human being would try and find the nearest hole and stay there.
That is the reason I think that anyone "strange" to the royal way of life would have an extremely hard time. I don´t count Camilla as she has been close to the royal family all her life and I am sure she can stand it, in fact she has proved she can.
But Camilla hasn't known the royal family all her life. She first met Prince Charles in the Spring/Summer of 1972 and even then she was introduced by a non-royal Chilean friend of hers. You're mixing her up with Diana - who had known the royal family all her life (in fact she was brought up on the Sandringham Estate until she was 15/16). That's why Diana was preferred by the Queen and Royal Household over Camilla.
__________________

  #1302  
Old 11-23-2008, 03:54 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilla View Post
Wbenson, now the laws has been checked thoroughly.... even laws that has not come into existence
Oh, I know. I just don't think the general public has any idea about such things.
__________________

  #1303  
Old 11-23-2008, 03:59 PM
Lilla's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 918
You are probably right, wbenson.
  #1304  
Old 11-23-2008, 04:18 PM
Menarue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cascais, Portugal
Posts: 2,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by BellaFay View Post
But Camilla hasn't known the royal family all her life. She first met Prince Charles in the Spring/Summer of 1972 and even then she was introduced by a non-royal Chilean friend of hers. You're mixing her up with Diana - who had known the royal family all her life (in fact she was brought up on the Sandringham Estate until she was 15/16). That's why Diana was preferred by the Queen and Royal Household over Camilla.
I probably mixed them up, but I was subconsciously thinking along the lines of whether she is actually one of them or not......it was always a question whether her grandmother was the daughter of K.Edward or not.....the family deny it, but........
  #1305  
Old 11-23-2008, 10:52 PM
CasiraghiTrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burbank, United States
Posts: 6,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by BellaFay View Post
But Camilla hasn't known the royal family all her life. She first met Prince Charles in the Spring/Summer of 1972 and even then she was introduced by a non-royal Chilean friend of hers. You're mixing her up with Diana - who had known the royal family all her life (in fact she was brought up on the Sandringham Estate until she was 15/16). That's why Diana was preferred by the Queen and Royal Household over Camilla.
I don't think Menarue was mixing them up. I think she meant that Camilla has known the royal family long enough to be used to it. She has known Charles longer than many have been alive so it comes to the same thing anyway. I think most people who are regulars here are quite aware of Diana's life. There have been enough articles and books about her. We don't need a recap, do we?
  #1306  
Old 11-24-2008, 10:02 AM
jcbcode99's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Richmond Area, United States
Posts: 1,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio View Post
We don't need a recap, do we?
Oh Dear Lord, no! I don't think the weight of this already heavy thread could stand it!
__________________
Janet

"We make a living by what we do; we make a life by what we give" Winston Churchill
  #1307  
Old 11-24-2008, 01:03 PM
StephS's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Arvada, United States
Posts: 18
I don't know if Camilla will ever become Queen, unless by some miracle public sentiment swings back her way. At the most, I think there'll be a situation similar to the one with the Queen and Prince Philip, where she might get to be called Your Majesty but without the title of Queen.
  #1308  
Old 11-24-2008, 08:15 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by StephS View Post
I don't know if Camilla will ever become Queen, unless by some miracle public sentiment swings back her way. At the most, I think there'll be a situation similar to the one with the Queen and Prince Philip, where she might get to be called Your Majesty but without the title of Queen.
Camilla cannot be addressed as "Your Majesty" unless she is HM The Queen (as the wife of The King) or HM Queen Camilla (as a dowager queen). If she becomes "HRH The Princess Consort", she will be a princess of the UK in her own right and addressed as "Your Royal Highness".

Philip was never addressed as anything but "Your Royal Highness". He was created a royal duke upon marriage by George VI, and later a Prince of the UK by The Queen in 1957.
  #1309  
Old 11-25-2008, 01:02 AM
StephS's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Arvada, United States
Posts: 18
Huh. There was a webpage I was reading linked to one of the Royalty discussion forums, and it said something about Prince Philip having the right to be called "Your Majesty" without having the actual title of King. I'm not sure which forum it came from; there's another forum I belong to that has a lot of links about what the titles are and stuff like that.

Okay, I found the site where I got the information about Prince Philip having the right to be addressed as Your Majesty without the title of King. I'll post the link to the site later, but in the meantime, here's the paragraph I pulled the information from:

Quote:
His Majesty, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh
The spouse of the reigning monarch generally receives the honorific His Majesty or Her Majesty. However, he or she does not necessarily gain the title of queen or king. Prince Philip was born a prince of Denmark and Greece, but renounced those titles. His British titles are created, designed in acknowledgment of his marriage to the Heiress Presumptive and her later ascension to the throne.
  #1310  
Old 11-25-2008, 01:51 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by StephS View Post
Okay, I found the site where I got the information about Prince Philip having the right to be addressed as Your Majesty without the title of King. I'll post the link to the site later, but in the meantime, here's the paragraph I pulled the information from:

With a male spouse, in Britain, this hasn't been the normal case at all (I can't think of anywhere where that is the case but I only really care about the British RF so I won't say for sure about other monarchies).

The Queens' Consort of Britain who have been married have had two types of husbands:

Mary I - her husband did have the title King but he was about to be King of Spain in his own right.

Mary II - her husband shared the throne with her, as he was very high in the line of succession in his own right (about 3rd or 4th or something) and then kept the throne anyway.

Anne - her husband was definitely only ever an HRH.

Victoria - she wanted her husband given the title of King Consort and the Prime Minister of her told her very succinctly that that wasn't possible so he was HRH

Elizabeth - Philip was born and HRH, ceased to be one for about 10 years and then was regranted it.

Please post the actual URL and not just the quote so people here can actually assess where you are getting this information.

It goes against everything I have ever read or studied about the titles in Britian.


It is also interesting that I put your paragraph into google and got no matches so I would really like the URL of the website.
  #1311  
Old 11-25-2008, 03:35 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,546
I found that paragraph here. Simply put, it's wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Elizabeth - Philip was born and HRH, ceased to be one for about 10 years and then was regranted it.
That was the title of Prince, not the HRH. He wasn't an HRH for a little while (although some people think he never really gave it up since all he really did was stop using it, but that was good enough for him so it's good enough for me), but George VI gave it back to him pretty quick after he lost it (it was all in 1947, IIRC). Even then, nobody really looked at what was signed and kept calling him Prince Philip for those 10 years when they shouldn't have. They even called him that in official letters patent, so it wasn't all that well-observed.
  #1312  
Old 11-25-2008, 03:40 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post


Elizabeth - Philip was born and HRH, ceased to be one for about 10 years and then was regranted it.
Philip was born a HRh of Greece, a foreign title that is only recognized in Britain as long as the holder is a foreign national. Philip applied for the British citizenship, so lost according to British law his Royal title. Same happened to all foreign princesses married to British princes (they got British HRH as spouses of princes at the same moment they lost their own, because on marrying they changed their nationality). Other case was Princess Ekaterina of Greece who married a British major and became a British citizen, she was granted the title and rank of a duke's daughter on her marriage to Major Brandram and became Lady Katherine Brandram as a British citizen.

So Philip lost his HRH when he became the British citizen Mr. Philip Mountbatten. But on the eve of his wedding, a very short time later, to Princess Elizabeth, the king created him HRH The Duke of Edinburgh. Which gave him back the right to a HRH but did not make him into a Prince of the Uk. Since then it is clear that creating HRH is a personal right of the monarch, as there was a precedence that the king can refuse the wife of a prince her style (The Duchess of Windsor) and can grant the style even though the person is no prince of the UK (Philip). And short before the divorces of Sarah and Diana, there was a decreet that former wifes should loose their titles on divorce. Which IMHO means that if Charles died before he became king and Camilla as his widow decided to remarry, she could keep the title HRH. But am not sure about 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.
  #1313  
Old 11-25-2008, 03:58 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,219
Sorry - as soon as I started to read your posts I realised what I had done - confused his HRH with his Prince title and simply had it round the wrong way.

He was born both an HRH and a Prince and was regranted HRH after giving it up - the fact that George VI saw a need to regrant it along with the Queen making her announcement in 1957 makes it pretty clear to me that he must have done something official to give up the right to use both the HRH and the Prince before his marriage. I am aware that there is no offiical document or statement available to the public to confirm this but the evidence of the grants by George VI and Elizabeth II says that something happened (of course the Prince title in 1957 was Prince of the UK etc but would that have been necessary if he had never done something to renounce his prince title in 1946/7?).

Again I must apologise for getting the terms mixed up in my post as I am fully aware of what happened and simply wrote it the wrong way.

However, I am still waiting for the URL to the paragraph posted in the post to which I was replying as a google search of the paragraph reveals nothing.

As a High School teacher I regularly do google searches of entire paragraphs to check for plagiarism in students' work so am familiar with the process and the paragraph doesn't come up in the words used or anything similar.

If anyone does know where this information is I would love to read it as it is just plain wrong.
  #1314  
Old 11-25-2008, 05:12 AM
Menarue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cascais, Portugal
Posts: 2,155
I am sorry about typing George V instead of VI..... it happens.
If I remember rightly the wish of Queen Victoria was carried out, but Albert not used until George VI as a name to call the prince by. When there are so many names an Albert can be slipped in the middle. Wasn´t the Queen the first not to get Victoria slipped in? That was disregarding Q.Vic´s wish (demand) or is there a Victoria somewhere.
Edward VIII was an interesting example, he was known by the last of his string of names - David.
Sorry if this is off topic but I have been reading all posts carefully and go back to what I really think - Queen Camilla it will be.
  #1315  
Old 11-25-2008, 05:43 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,219
The present Queen is the first major member of the RF not to have either Victoria or Albert in her name - Elizabeth Alexandra Mary are her names.

I believe George V commented that he didn't think it was necessary to include the Victoria. She did insist on her descendents in the BRF during her lifetime but after that it sort of disappeared. I don't know how insistent Edward VII was.
  #1316  
Old 11-25-2008, 05:55 AM
Menarue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cascais, Portugal
Posts: 2,155
I think Edward VII was being conscientous and carried out his mother´s wish. From what we can read his mother´s obsessive preoccupation with Albert´s memory made the filial fondness their had for him recede a little if not a lot.
  #1317  
Old 11-25-2008, 08:20 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
Funny how you left this part out of your reply.
I left nothing out of my reply as everyone is able to see!
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
Have you perhaps met Camilla and discussed the roll with her that you are an authority? It seems we are back to the 'is there a statement from Camilla' otherwise it's giggles and whistles. Are there books to judge her by, yes, most of them in my library!:-) But you keep posting that you dont consider them truthful. I find this very interesting. These books have been exhaustively vetted for libel. Yet you continually question their veracity
I never make a claim I am unwilling to 'prove'. If you believe that books are 'vetted' for libel and then not printed, you are mistaken. I haven't asked for a statement from Camilla, YOU keep suggesting that is what YOU read in my posts. I ask again, with all the evidence I have provided, the constant repeat of posts which you seem unable to comprehend, where have I said that only a statement is acceptable?

I'm quite certain your 'library' is full of books, which ones would not be hard to guess, sadly
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter
Here we go again. What book or author do you accept as being truthful and accurate Skydragon? Because you make a career on this board of arguing every quote from every book that is anything other than a glowing review of Charles and Camilla. Once again you are back to 'nothing other than a statement from Charles or Camilla is definative'...because they dont have an axe to grind, right....
Quote:
Originally Posted by skydragon
Did you read the post, because it would appear not from your reply, (what quote, what book am I disagreeing with and where on earth does it say anything about a definitive statement from anyone?)for your edification I repeat it here
Quote:
Originally Posted by princessistanbul View Post
I hope only Duchess... all time
She's not fit for "Queen" title
to which I replied
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
And you know this how? Have you perhaps met her and discussed the role with her, is there a book we can read to judge her by?
Quote:
However IF you know of a book giving details on what constitutes being fit to have Queen title, I am sure we would all love to hear about it!
Perhaps now we can move on because this is becoming seriously boring!
  #1318  
Old 11-25-2008, 08:27 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by StephS View Post
Huh. There was a webpage I was reading...
This is the second time you have posted an unsourced website "quote" that is completely incorrect. I'd suggest you find more reliable and accurate sites to quote from.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
  #1319  
Old 11-25-2008, 02:14 PM
StephS's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Arvada, United States
Posts: 18
Understanding The Royal Family | Lifescript.com

If I actually had the time and the money to undertake the kind of research you all seem to be suggesting, I'd do so. Right now, I've got a job that pays jack and a stack of bills and unpaid overdue fines at the library that I'm drowning in, so forgive me if I just go with the nearest source of information I can find on the web instead of camping out at the library or the nearest Barnes & Noble.
  #1320  
Old 11-25-2008, 02:37 PM
Thomas Parkman's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Columbia, United States
Posts: 531
Well, good people, I would refer you to good old Harry VIII of blessed (?) memory. Now there was a king who did his duty and had a grand total of six wives, all of whom were in their day, however short or fleeting or fatal it miight have been, were known and bowed to as the Queen of England, for the simple reason they were married to the King of England.

So all this nonsense about a lesser title is just that. Her
Royal Higness, Camilla, Princess of Wales should be known by her legal name and title. And if and when the time comes and Charles becomes Charles III she should be Queen Camilla, pure and simple. I simply cannot understand why people still cling to the past over this. What happned happened. It is no worse and certainly a lot better than a lot of cases I could name. I suppose it is just very difficult to let go of fantasies and romantic dreams. But I would make a guess that Katherine Howard and Anne Bolyen would have loved to have had the fate of Diana, without the automobile accident of course, but then they didn't have cars, over what actually happened to them. Cheers.
__________________

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 birth britannia 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 dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family tree gemstones 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 names pless politics portugal prince harry queen elizabeth ii queen victoria 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 09:20 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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