Will Charles Ever Reign?

[Zonk]

Branchg...you are correct. I am sure the Queen and Prince Phillip speak it. All of his sisters married German princes if I am correct.

But still...my main point is....if you are born in a particular country and embrace it as your own...how long are you considered to be forgeign and not a native? Not trying to incite a riot...and maybe it has a place on another thread but here is my thought. The United States (except for the indigenous people of the land) is a country of immigrants...and after a generation or so you become an hyphen...An Italian-American, Irish-American, etc....you embrace aspects of your heritage but for all intents and purposes you are American (again this is in my utopian society...I realize its not always perfect.) It seems to me (and again, please correct me if I am wrong) that while your great great great grandmother was German...but the last THREE generations of your family were born in England...its silly to be referred as German! That's just my opinion...sorry if offends anyone.

 

[ysbel]

The United States (except for the indigenous people of the land) is a country of immigrants...and after a generation or so you become an hyphen...An Italian-American, Irish-American, etc....you embrace aspects of your heritage but for all intents and purposes you are American.

Hi Zonk, the United States is unique among countries to use the place of birth as the defining factor in a child's nationality. Historically, the European countries have used the nationality of the father to determine the child's nationality. What you say is correct for Americans but not necessarily true for Brits.

I think someone said they don't use the father's nationality anymore but its ingrained in the Brit heritage to define the nationality by your paternal ancestors.

 

[Elspeth]

Hi Zonk, the United States is unique among countries to use the place of birth as the defining factor in a child's nationality. Historically, the European countries have used the nationality of the father to determine the child's nationality. What you say is correct for Americans but not necessarily true for Brits.

I think someone said they don't use the father's nationality anymore but its ingrained in the Brit heritage to define the nationality by your paternal ancestors.

That was me. I think both parents' nationality is taken into account these days. Not before time.

 

[Zonk]

Ysbel/Espeth..thanks for clearing that up! It just didn't make sense to me at first!

 

[branchg]

Branchg...you are correct. I am sure the Queen and Prince Phillip speak it. All of his sisters married German princes if I am correct.

Neither the Queen nor Prince Philip are particuarly fluent in German, although Philip definately has a better command of it. The Queen has excellent fluency in French however.

 

[ysbel]

This reminds me of something that has always bugged me. Alexandra was anti-German and I read somewhere about an argument between her and her brother-in-law, Ernst of Hesse at a family gathering.

Apparently they went back and forth, Ernst saying, 'Aber der war daenish." and Alexandra shot back Nein, der war deutsch. Alexandra apparently won the argument but I could never find out what it was about.

Is this just my imagination or did this really happen? I'd be really curious to find out what they were arguing about.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Re:

Ysbel,

I've heard that story before but I don't know the exact wording! I think that alot of European Royalty became very anti-German after WW1.

 

[Warren]

I think that alot of European Royalty became very anti-German after WW1.

And well before WWI too. Alexandra never forgave the Prussian invasion and annexation of Schleswig-Holstein, where Denmark lost a sizeable chunk of its territory.
.

 

[tiaraprin]

And well before WWI too. Alexandra never forgave the Prussian invasion and annexation of Schleswig-Holstein, where Denmark lost a sizeable chunk of its territory.
.

This is quite true. This territorial dispute came shortly after her marriage to the Prince of Wales and Alexandra was quite vocal in support for her native Denmark. She was on a royal visit to the Prussian area right after the dispute and refused to meet the Emperor and Empress of Prussia because she was so angry. Queen Victoria was "not amused" by Alexandra's anger and it caused some diplomatic problems for Queen Victoria. Alexandra was heavily prevailed upon to meet the Prussian Monarchs and finally succumbed, but she let it show she wasn't happy about it.

 

[ysbel]

Thanks everybody. I'm quite aware why Alexandra hated the Prussians. It's my opinion that England's refusal to support Denmark in the dispute caused the real and lasting damage to Alexandra's and Edward's marriage, his extra-curricula activities notwithstanding. It looks like Alexandra never forgave that one. Being in the pro-German court with Victoria who loved anything and everything German must have been a living hell for Alexandra.

I'm just dying to find out what Alexandra and Ernst were arguing about. They were arguing in German and apparently arguing over whether someone or something was German or Danish. Ernst claimed it was Danish and Alexandra claimed it was German so it must not have been very nice.

Is there any more to the story?

 

[caroline mathilda]

This reminds me of something that has always bugged me. Alexandra was anti-German and I read somewhere about an argument between her and her brother-in-law, Ernst of Hesse at a family gathering.

Apparently they went back and forth, Ernst saying, 'Aber der war daenish." and Alexandra shot back Nein, der war deutsch. Alexandra apparently won the argument but I could never find out what it was about.

Is this just my imagination or did this really happen? I'd be really curious to find out what they were arguing about.

Are you talking about Queen Alexandra of Britain? She was his aunt by marriage, wasn't she?
I had always been under the impression that this conversation most likely took place between herself and her nephew-in-in-law the Kaiser Wilhem II of Germany, who was the thorn at every Royal gathering.

 

[ysbel]

Are you talking about Queen Alexandra of Britain? She was his aunt by marriage, wasn't she?
I had always been under the impression that this conversation most likely took place between herself and her nephew-in-in-law the Kaiser Wilhem II of Germany, who was the thorn at every Royal gathering.

Hi Caroline, yes we're talking about Queen Alexandra. Wilhelm II was definitely 'bad Willy' of the family but the story I read definitely concerned Alexandra's brother-in-law, Grand Duke Ernst of Hesse, husband of Princess Alice and father to Alexandra Feodorovna the last Empress of Russia.

 

[Mapple]

Thanks everybody. I'm quite aware why Alexandra hated the Prussians. It's my opinion that England's refusal to support Denmark in the dispute caused the real and lasting damage to Alexandra's and Edward's marriage, his extra-curricula activities notwithstanding. ...

IIRC Britain supported Denmark in the Schleswig-Holstein question; the Court, however, did not.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Re:

... removed by Warren...

There is no proof of any affair.

]Where was he when Michael Fagan broke into her bedroom, and sat on her bed?

Royal Couples do not share bedrooms. The Queen's Bedroom is seperated from Prince Philip's by her dressing room and his dressing room. Prince Philip wasn't there when Michael Fagan broke in and whether he was or not, the Queen dealt with it very well on her own.

 

[seto]

I'm sure that Phillip and The Queen don't share a room , but I'm sure the others do.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Re:

Not according to Brian Hoey.

All members of the Royal Family have seperate bedrooms within the Royal Palaces and very few have them at their private homes.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

He does have a separate, single bed in case he gets back late from a separate engagement in his dressing room. But according to Majesty Magazine from June 2002, the Queen's Special Golden Jubilee edition main story, they do share a bedroom and bed, always have.

 

[ysbel]

I find it very hard to believe that the Queen had affairs that resulted in the births of her last two children.

If the Queen and Prince Philip share a bedroom they would be very unlike other couples of their age and class who generally were raised to expect separate bedrooms. I'm not doubting Majesty magazine; it would just be an unusual situation. I remember the furor that Betty Ford caused when she wanted to share the same bedroom in the White House with her husband. This was as late as the 70s! Some old Washington society matrons went into shock!

 

[Margrethe II]

I find it very hard to believe that the Queen had affairs that resulted in the births of her last two children.

Here Here...

"MII"

 

[branchg]

....deleted by Warren .... Where was he when Michael Fagan broke into her bedroom, and sat on her bed?

This is ridiculous and old hat gossip. There has never been one iota of evidence that Philip has ever had an affair in all the years of their marriage and the relationship with Alexandra has long been one of friendship. The Queen understood that Philip needed to be his own man in the marriage and have lady friends of his own. That doesn't mean he slept with them!

There is no "question mark" about Andrew or Edward's paternity. Give me a break.
.

 

[Mary Wellesley]

Mary Wellesley

I think that Charles will have a short reign, like Edward VII. I do think that we will see William as a very active Prince of Wales during that time.

I look forward to a long and golden reign for King William V, a fresh start and a clean slate for the monarchy after so much unhappiness and pain.This little island will light up end to end on that happy day,when Diana's son and look alike comes to the throne.Diana will be vindicated also.In leaving us her boys she may be the saving of the Windsors despite themselves yet.

 

[Warren]

I have taken out the ridiculous and slanderous gossip posts.

'Startling allegations' will need be backed up with evidence, or the posts deleted. Simple.

Warren
Royal Forums SuperModerator

 

[David40]

i have a question. When King Edward got involved with Wallis Simpson, it was seen as an outrage with the people of Britain because she was a divorcee. Camilla is a divorcee so does that mean that Charles will have to abdicate if he does become King or does that mean he can never become King? I don't see any difference between Edward - Wallis and Charls-Camilla

As others said when this question was first posted, factors may have included far less public acceptance of divorce at the time, and the alleged Nazi sympathies of Wallis (and, by extension, Edward).

Another factor may be the age of the women involved. Wallis was, at 40, still of late childbearing age. Camilla, at 58, is presumably beyond childbearing years unless she takes advantage of certain modern technologies--but even if she did the children of the union would be behind William and Harry in succession. A child of the Edward-Wallis union would have been heir apparent or heir presumptive.

Public attitudes have changed since 1936 but I don't know that church attitudes have changed much. The church offered a delicate solution to the Camilla situation, to remain on the sidelines during the ceremony itself and then to bless the union after it became a fait accompli through a civil wedding. This solution works because the tricky question of whether the children of the union are legitimate in the church's eyes is unlikely to come up.

This solution would not have worked in 1936 because the possibility of children--and not only children, but children definitely first in line to rule--existed with Wallis. I believe there has been speculation that Wallis--childless despite being married, albeit to different men, almost all her adult life--suffered from a congenital defect making children impossible. But I don't think anyone knew this for sure in 1936. Edward and Wallis never had children, but no one in 1936 knew for sure that is how it would play out.

 

[branchg]

The real problem in 1936 was the fact Wallis and Ernst Simpson had recently divorced under highly questionable circumstances. Also, unlike Charles, Edward was already King and Sovereign, which put a very tricky constitutional situation into play as to whether he was required to secure the approval of the Church and Prime Minister to marry. The opposition of Queen Mary to any possibility of marriage also played a large role.

The final nail in the coffin was when the news finally became public knowledge. It was quite clear within a week the British public was adamantly against Wallis becoming Queen Consort. Whether, with time and patience, Edward could have slowly won acceptance for Wallis as a royal consort, but not Queen, is debatable. What is clear is that the Government and Establishment had no intention of allowing the King to continue as Sovereign unless he gave up the idea of marriage.

 

[David40]

There is no chance of the throne skipping a generation and passing to William directly except in the case where the Queen outlives Charles. Such a decision would be highly irregular and, if such a decision were going to be made at all during the Queen's lifetime, it would have already been made. The fact that a clear plan is in place for Camilla to assume the title of HRH The Princess Consort when Charles accedes means that there is no plan for him to renounce his claim to the throne. For Charles to assume the throne and then abdicate because of mild unpopularity would greatly weaken the monarchy, and I do not expect it to happen.

A minor point that I don't think anyone else has mentioned is that if the throne were to 'skip a generation', William would be King and Charles would be Duke of Edinburgh, thus depriving Edward of a title that he has been promised. This is yet another reason why it won't happen.

One issue that will need to be resolved is what role Camilla will play at Charles' coronation. If she is technically Queen, even though using another title, how will the coronation be handled?

Are there any circumstances, given the current makeup of the Royal Family, where the Princess of Wales would be entitled to higher precedence than the Duchess of Cornwall? How has that been handled when Camilla has been in attendance?

 

[branchg]

There is no chance of the throne skipping a generation and passing to William directly except in the case where the Queen outlives Charles. Such a decision would be highly irregular and, if such a decision were going to be made at all during the Queen's lifetime, it would have already been made. The fact that a clear plan is in place for Camilla to assume the title of HRH The Princess Consort when Charles accedes means that there is no plan for him to renounce his claim to the throne. For Charles to assume the throne and then abdicate because of mild unpopularity would greatly weaken the monarchy, and I do not expect it to happen.

A minor point that I don't think anyone else has mentioned is that if the throne were to 'skip a generation', William would be King and Charles would be Duke of Edinburgh, thus depriving Edward of a title that he has been promised. This is yet another reason why it won't happen.

One issue that will need to be resolved is what role Camilla will play at Charles' coronation. If she is technically Queen, even though using another title, how will the coronation be handled?

Are there any circumstances, given the current makeup of the Royal Family, where the Princess of Wales would be entitled to higher precedence than the Duchess of Cornwall? How has that been handled when Camilla has been in attendance?

Charles must be King under the Act of Settlement upon the death of his mother. It is automatic and without question. There is no chance of the throne skipping a generation unless Charles was completely incapacitated by health at the time of his succession.

The issue of Camilla's role when Charles becomes King is one that will have to be reconsidered by the Prime Minister and Parliament when the time comes. Unlike the present situation, Camilla cannot assume a style or title other than Queen Consort without legislation being passed by Parliament and the Commonwealth Crown countries affirming she will not be Queen.

The question was settled in 1936 and an Act of Exclusion would need to be passed. Then Charles as Sovereign could issue letters patent granting Camilla the style and title of Princess Consort with precedence ahead of all others princesses of the blood royal, similar to what was done in 1957 for Prince Philip.

 

[Von Schlesian]

There is no proof of any affair.

Royal Couples do not share bedrooms. The Queen's Bedroom is seperated from Prince Philip's by her dressing room and his dressing room. Prince Philip wasn't there when Michael Fagan broke in and whether he was or not, the Queen dealt with it very well on her own.

On the night of the intrusion to Buckingham Palace, HRH The Prince Philip had been attending engagements elsewhere, and due to the distance, was staying away from the palace. Her Majesty and His Royal Highness share a bedroom, as any other married couple. The seperate rooms are more in accordance with assisting HM and HRH's personal staff (which aren't the same).

 

[Skydragon]

There is no chance of the throne skipping a generation and passing to William directly except in the case where the Queen outlives Charles.
Are there any circumstances, given the current makeup of the Royal Family, where the Princess of Wales would be entitled to higher precedence than the Duchess of Cornwall? How has that been handled when Camilla has been in attendance?

Technically Camilla is the Princess of Wales, so I don't really understand the question.
If after the coronation, Charles makes William the Prince of Wales, William's wife (as Princess of Wales) would not take precedence over Camilla, as the Queen consort.
You also asked about the difference between Wallis and Camilla, from what I have read in history books over the years, 2 of the problems not already mentioned here were that Wallis was:-
1. Twice divorced
2. She was an American.
According to my grand-mother, these things really mattered way back when.

 

[Skydragon]

Diana used to call the Royal Family "those Germans" on a bad day.....LOL. A true English aristocrat I guess! Princess Marina used to call the Queen Mother and Princess Alice, "those common little Scottish girls". In Marina's world, the Queen was only half-royal.

As I understand, Diana was not a true English Aristocrat, she had American and Scottish blood lines.
Beatrixfan is quite right when she says a very small amount of scots want to be separated from the United Kingdom.

 

[ksenia]

i find it hard to reconcile the private person from the public figure sometimes. although we all have the right to choose whe we love and want to marry- as the figurehead of a nation the people are entitled to some input as to who will represent them. So I think it was justified for the people to protest Wallis or today Camilla. I also think King Edward was right in choosing one over the other. I think the problems begin when we think we can always have it all- which is not the case. the tragedy in that situation was that he did not think the consequences through thoroughly and suffered because of it. As much as they bemoan their status and the limitations, it would be a shock to be "common" for them. Not for a day but a lifetime as the saying goes- look at the DOW.The path the POW and DOC are on will be a long one and if she is never accepted then that is just the price they have to pay for their transgressions.