Will Charles Ever Reign?

[corazon]

What comes to mind is the Union Jack over Buckingham Palace after the princess died. As far as I know, the Union Jack over the palace has never flown at half mast, even unon the death of a monarch.

You're right, but all the nations loved diana, was a nice gesture from her majesty.
About the titles, the last word has the queen. For her camilla must be called duchess. For many people is good and for another is wrong, but was queen's word.
wiliam in the future want to give back the her mother the title, is a very complicated situation for all.

 

[corazon]

I think you might be confusing the British way with the Danish way. When Diana divorced, she became - Diana, Princess of Wales. She was not Her Royal Highness or Her Highness. The Princess of Wales addition to her name was to show she had once been married to the Prince of Wales. Had she been alive in 2005, she would have had to return to Lady Diana Spencer because Camilla would have become HRH The Princess of Wales. But who knows, she may have been Mrs Al-Fayed by then.

She lost all titles she held. The HRH cannot be awarded posthumously so all this talk of William reinstating it when he is King is frankly, rubbish. It wont happen because it cant happen. It would mean nothing to Diana and would simply be three more letters on a tombstone. She wasn't done out of it in a cruel fashion - she divorced and so she lost it, the same as she lost her Princess of Wales title. That title should be held by Camilla now.

yeah, but she have all the titles, she lost the title of princess of wales when she remarry and yes, if she was alive now, should be lady diana untill william will be king,
The title of camilla was queen' s decition, not not mine, nor nobody only the queen

 

[btsnyder]

Had she been alive in 2005, she would have had to return to Lady Diana Spencer because Camilla would have become HRH The Princess of Wales. But who knows, she may have been Mrs Al-Fayed by then.

Is this true? I've never seen any instances where this was the case. Like I said earlier, Princess Margaret remained Countess of Snowdon even after Lord Snowdon remarried. Had she lived and had not remarried, I believe Diana would have remained "Diana, Princess of Wales, while Camilla would have been "HRH The Princess of Wales."

 

[corazon]

is not possible to be known exactly as would be in 2005 with diana alive.

 

[selrahc4]

Had she been alive in 2005, she would have had to return to Lady Diana Spencer because Camilla would have become HRH The Princess of Wales. But who knows, she may have been Mrs Al-Fayed by then.

Is this true? I've never seen any instances where this was the case. Like I said earlier, Princess Margaret remained Countess of Snowdon even after Lord Snowdon remarried. Had she lived and had not remarried, I believe Diana would have remained "Diana, Princess of Wales, while Camilla would have been "HRH The Princess of Wales."

You are correct, btsnyder

 

[BeatrixFan]

You're right, but all the nations loved diana, was a nice gesture from her majesty.

Did all nations love her? Let's not over-exaggerate. It wasn't a nice gesture at all - she was told to do it by her Private Secretary as he said in an interview for the Jubilee "I told HM that we really had very little choice and she said, 'We should have done it sooner and avoided the embarrasment'.

Camilla seems to have had the last word here. The Queen would be fine with letting her use the Princess title I'm sure. I think she'd prefer her too being a stickler for tradition. It was Camilla who chose to use the Duchess title.

wiliam in the future want to give back the her mother the title, is a very complicated situation for all.

It's not so much of a complicated situation as a non-existant one. It wont happen. If he does reinstate those initials he'll be making a mockery of the Monarchy and he ceases to be my King.

yeah, but she have all the titles, she lost the title of princess of wales when she remarry and yes, if she was alive now, should be lady diana untill william will be king

What difference would that make? If he gave her a title it would be seen as cronyism and nothing more.

I believe Diana would have remained "Diana, Princess of Wales, while Camilla would have been "HRH The Princess of Wales."

I don't think thats quite right but I'll check. I think that the rule with Diana was much like a Dowager's title but when Charles remarried, she couldn't have used the Princess of Wales bit - it'd be an embarrassment.

 

[Oppie]

Diana, Princess of Wales the last part acting as a last name. I think if she remarried she would have lost it although she could go back to using Lady.
I asked the question before and it seemed that the answer was if she married John Smith should would be Lady Diana Smith.

 

[btsnyder]

Correct, if SHE remarried she would have changed her "last name." It's kind of silly to think anything her ex-husband decided to do, marry, remain single, whatever, would have any imapact of what she had to do. If she remained single forever, she would have remained "Diana, Princess of Wales" forever.

And Oppie, you're right. Lady Sarah Chatto, as well as Lady Sarah McCorquodale are two examples that come to mind.

 

[corazon]

Did all nations love her? Let's not over-exaggerate.

our opinions never are going to agree, I go to the facts, Churchill was not member of the royal family and was the first person's funeral in Westminster because all the people love him. diana (legally) was not member of the crown and also she had a funeralthere, camilla cannot have the last word on her title, the only one that can is the queen.

''the Sovereign is the Fount of Honour (an ancient term, but precise) and is the ultimate judge of what honours may be bestowed and forfeited'' www.baronage.co.uk

 

[Elspeth]

This is my problem with Camilla not being Princess of Wales, I did a quick history check Joan of Kent, Anne Neville, Catherine of Aragon, Princess Caroline of Brandenburg-Ansbach, Augusta of Saxe-Gotha, Caroline of Brunswick, Princess Alexandra of Denmark, Princess Mary of Teck, were all Princesses of Wales. Joan was Princess of Wales 800 years ago I don't think it is fair to play with history like this. All of the wives got the title. Camilla should too, it never was Diana to begin with.

Camilla IS Princess of Wales. She isn't USING the title because of recent history. The royal family can't be totally blind to public opinion and hope to survive, especially in the setting of a Prime Minister who thinks the monarch is irrelevant anyway.

 

[Elspeth]

Had she been alive in 2005, she would have had to return to Lady Diana Spencer because Camilla would have become HRH The Princess of Wales.

No she wouldn't. At the very least she'd have been Lady Diana Mountabatten-Windsor or something. Once she's divorced from Charles, his subsequent marital status is irrelevant to her. The Queen said she'd be Diana, Princess of Wales, and that's what she's have almost certainly remained. When an aristocrat remarries, his ex-wife doesn't revert to her maiden name just because there's a new Marchioness of whatever.

She wasn't done out of it in a cruel fashion - she divorced and so she lost it, the same as she lost her Princess of Wales title. That title should be held by Camilla now.

It is. Since she isn't suicidally arrogant, she isn't using the title. She still has it, though.

 

[corazon]

Camilla IS Princess of Wales. She isn't USING the title because of recent history. The royal family can't be totally blind to public opinion and hope to survive, especially in the setting of a Prime Minister who thinks the monarch is irrelevant anyway.

exactly, with the unick jack when diana died was the same.

 

[corazon]

here is all the information abut diana's titles
http://www.baronage.co.uk/diana/di-arms1.html

 

[Skydragon]

Diana was right about her points in 1995 TV interview. Charles will be not a happy King because he has too many things to achieve under such restrictions but he will be a good king because he will be very dutiful as King. Diana should have not questioned Charles' fitness to be King in the 1995 interview. How sad she did to Charles and the Queen in front of the public but it reflects her real thought of not wanting Charles to be King because she will not become Queen. It was a revenge on Charles and lead to her divource finally. She paid her cost.

Charles will make a good and fair King, he has really been made to suffer because some of the 'public' wanted him to live his life to please them.
He has been made to suffer far more in his marriage/divorce/remarriage than anyone would wish on their worst enemy.

He has been laughed at because he reflects the true feelings of ordinary people on architecture/art etc.
He believes in organic farming methods and anyone who has tried organic produce will rate it far above factory farmed stuff.
He has a lot of good ideas that people claim as theirs, years down the line.

Did you know that it took Diana 5 hours of filming to ensure that she got the 'tragic but brave' look to the documentary that she wanted, that the chair was arranged so that she could do the 'shy di look', even the extra eyeliner she used was to make her appear tragic. She said 'she knew Charles', how, they had been living separate lives for 7 years at that time and she clearly didn't know him before that. How would Diana know what Charles wanted,

Sadly people have made him suffer because he didn't live out their fantasies of a Prince and Princess's fairytale ending, but he has survived and I want him and his wife Camilla as my next King and Queen.

It is something he has wanted, waited and trained for all his life and with the woman he loves by his side, then everything is possible!

 

[branchg]

diana lost the title HRH (untill william outside king), not the princess of wales because she was the future's king mother, that was the agreement of the divorce.

Both Diana and Sarah lost their titles with divorce because they held them only as the wives of princes of the blood royal, not in their own right. Like other divorcees of peers, their former titles became a style (like a surname) until such time they remarried.

The Queen also issued letters patent providing that any former wife of a prince of the UK would not hold the rank of Royal Highness after a divorce. Technically, Diana and Sarah both were commoners again, although in Diana's case, the Queen declared her precedence and status to be more or less equal to what she held during the marriage as the mother of a future king.

 

[branchg]

Correct, if SHE remarried she would have changed her "last name." It's kind of silly to think anything her ex-husband decided to do, marry, remain single, whatever, would have any imapact of what she had to do. If she remained single forever, she would have remained "Diana, Princess of Wales" forever.

Like all divorcees of peers, Diana retained the style "Princess of Wales" as part of her name until she remarried, regardless of whether Charles remarried. From a practical point of view, it is highly unlikely the Queen would have allowed Charles to marry Camilla while Diana was alive anyway.

 

[branchg]

The royal family can't be totally blind to public opinion and hope to survive, especially in the setting of a Prime Minister who thinks the monarch is irrelevant anyway.

Considering public opinion at the time, Charles was lucky Tony Blair didn't advise the Queen special legislation would be passed in Parliament providing Camilla would not share his royal rank. There was talk among the Establishment that Camilla would be granted a lifetime peerage (i.e. Countess of Truro) and that was it. In the end, there was enough public acceptance to scrape by.

 

[Elspeth]

I sincerely hope that if that had been the case, the Queen would have strongly advised Charles and Camilla not to get married. I mean, either morganatic marriage exists or it doesn't, but that would be the worst of both worlds by a long way.

Just imagine the digs by comedians and journalists along the lines that Camilla isn't good enough for all of Cornwall, she's just good enough for Truro. That would have been really damaging.

 

[branchg]

I sincerely hope that if that had been the case, the Queen would have strongly advised Charles and Camilla not to get married. I mean, either morganatic marriage exists or it doesn't, but that would be the worst of both worlds by a long way.

Just imagine the digs by comedians and journalists along the lines that Camilla isn't good enough for all of Cornwall, she's just good enough for Truro. That would have been really damaging.

Morganatic marriage exists when Parliament decides it exists. In the case of Wallis Simpson, it did, so unfortunately, that precedent will always be available since the Crown issued letters patent on the advice of its Ministers to deny her the rank of Royal Highness.

I agree there was no way out on the issue of Camilla. If the Government and the Queen were not prepared to allow her to marry Charles and share his rank, it would have basically forced Charles to consider renouncing his place in the line of succession for being divorced.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

A commoner is someone who is not of the blood royal, regardless of whether they are Mr. Joe Smith or the Duke of Westminster. In reality, the Queen and her children and grandchildren are only half-royal. The marriage of Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark and Prince George, Duke of Kent was the last true marriage of the blood royal.

In German or Russian terms, the Queen and her descendants are considered to be morganatic.

No. Prince Philip was born a royal prince and therefore their four children are wholly royal.

The marriage of Constantine and Anne Marie, Sophia and Juan Carlos were the last big marriages of blood royal outside of Great Britain.

 

[Iluvbertie]

No. Prince Philip was born a royal prince and therefore their four children are wholly royal.

The marriage of Constantine and Anne Marie, Sophia and Juan Carlos were the last big marriages of blood royal outside of Great Britain.

I suppose the argument about the Queen and her children could apply due to the fact that the Queen Mum wasn't born royal meaning that her children, i.e. the Queen and Princess Margaret aren't completely royal and therefore their children aren't either.

 

[ysbel]

No. Prince Philip was born a royal prince and therefore their four children are wholly royal.

The marriage of Constantine and Anne Marie, Sophia and Juan Carlos were the last big marriages of blood royal outside of Great Britain.

Yes, in reality, not in technicality. Prince Philip gave up his Greek title to become a British citizen as Lt. Philip Mountbatten. But, as far as dynastic concerns, his blood is most royal of all.

The marriages entered into by all the Crown Princes today would have been considered morganatic at one time. Sweden only changes its laws requiring equal marriages for royals in the 70s before Carl Gustaf married Sylvia.

 

[Queen Mary I]

Queen Mary I,

Morals Morals Morals. Has anyone considered that Camilla might just be the injured party in it all? In love with another man she couldn't marry, her husband having an affair? On the other side, Charles in love with a woman he couldn't be with and Diana having affairs. There must have been a time when Camilla really thought she'd never be with Charles. And she loves him. And that's stronger than any social perception on marriage laws and divorces and adultery or whatever else you want to throw at them. They loved each other and they had to be together. Camilla became this hated public figure because she was the other woman. Why didn't any of Diana's lovers become hated? Camilla's got the man she loves and that to her must mean more that titles and tiaras. I'll be honest, they don't want public forgiveness. People remarry - it happens all the time, but for Charles and Camilla, it's different. They are in unique positions.
You won't change your mind of course and that's your right - but don't buy into the public myth. Look into the personalities and not the labels. Just my tuppence worth.

From all I have been able to gather over the years Camilla made certain she would stay visible in Charle's life. As a newlywed I would have been deeply offended, and very upset if I discovered my Bridegroom was wearing cufflinks with pet initials given to him by his 'former' lover.

It seems to me that the people who condone adultery have no problem with Charles and Camilla's extramarital affair. I believe Diana would not have embarked on affairs if her husband had been faithful to her-at least until the divorce. But she is dead, a major hurdle out of Charle's way and now the mistress will be Queen. I for one will not rejoice if that sad day should come to pass. I will take solace in the fact that Charles is pushing 60, the Queen seems in excellent health and his reign if it happens will be brief.

 

[Queen Mary I]

Hi Queen Mary I

Welcome to the conversation. Let's get some facts straight. Charles and Camilla NEVER publically denegrated Diana. Charles made one public comment that he had become unfaithful in his marriage once the marriage was irrevocably broken. That's it - no pointing fingers, no assigning blame. At the time, the statement was criticized for hurting Diana, but Diana had already out-ed his affair with Andrew Morton's book. She knew well about the affair by then. Camilla has never publically spoken about Diana and I doubt she ever will. Most of what you hear about C&C's affair comes from Diana and being hurt like she was, she was hardly an objective observer. Diana made a conscious choice to expose the inner workings of her relationship with Charles; it was a mistake IMHO, because once she got over the hurt I don't think she would have wanted constant reminders (books, Panorama interview) of how she felt during that hurtful time.

You mention how Andrew never once spoke disparagingly of his wife. That is significant because Sarah cheated on him, yet unlike Diana if she had lived, Andrew has no Panorama interview pouring out his hurt and anger, no book he secretly collaborated on to show the world how unfaithful she really was. Andrew didn't go there so he doesn't have reminders of being hurt during that troubled time. He has far the most part recovered and maintained a good relationship with his children and the woman who cheated on him. That is the reason I think Diana shouldn't have gone the route she did.

Charles even took pains to shelter his children from his relationship to Camilla. Unlike many fathers, he didn't introduce his new love until the children were adults. In fact, in public, he showed respect to his wife.

As far as the affair itself, marriages get in trouble, the couples don't know how to fix them, and they reach out to someone outside of the marriage. Both Charles and Diana did it and for the same reasons. They couldn't figure out how to fix what had been broken and they still needed love and support. Occasionally the affairs end and the marriage gets back on track but the marriage needs a strong base to grow off of. Charles and Diana didn't have that strong base to work off of. Yes, we all would have liked a fairytale ending with Charles and Diana crowned King and Queen and riding off into the sunset but our fairytale is not worth the pain and suffering that both would have had to go through to give us that fairytale.

BTW, Elton John was one of the few true friends that Diana had in the last months in her life and he was true because he was willing to tell her things that she might not be willing to hear rather than the rest of the syncophants that just told her what she wanted to hear. True friends are loving AND honest and true friends let you know when you've gone too far. I cannot see where saying that Charles married the wrong woman is trash talking Diana. Charles and Diana were wholly unsuited for each other. That's not trash talking Diana or Charles, it makes them like all the other marriages that are entered into for the wrong reasons.

Diana 'allegedly' called Camilla a Rottweiler, and Camilla 'allegedly' called Diana 'that ridiculous woman'. Like most of us I go by the articles, and interviews with 'friends' and 'courtiers' who speak to the press but are too cowardly to allow their names to be used. I believe there is more truth in the 'gossip' over the years.

You seem to put the blame on Diana for all that transpired. And the poor dead Princess isn't here to defend herself against Camilla and Charle's friends who continue to trash her.

I must agree to disagree with you and then I will end it right here. I say that two worldly wise lovers conspired to stay together even if both were married. And the teenaged Diana believed whatever the experienced 31 year old Charles said when he was courting her. He is not an evil man. But I believe he used her because he needed a broodmare. I will always believe that.

To go back to the subject none if this changes the succession. I only wish that it would because of my personal beliefs.

And I don't believe btw that the monarchy would be damaged if the succession were changed. On the contrary-I believe 'all the people would rejoice' at the news that William not Charles would be their next king. The monarchy has survived nearly one thousand years and it will still be alive and kicking for a thousand more.

And I must disagree with whomever wrote in an earlier thread that 'the U.S. has accepted' Camilla. If you are going by the people who bothered to go see them on tour then you are right. If you go by the men and women on the streets who were polled-some of who didn't even know the Prince and Camilla were visiting-well I won't even go there. It wasn't pretty.

It just speaks volumes that Clarence House would be so afraid of the Ghost Of Diana that they would even go through the bother of this 'Duchess Of Cornwall' and 'Princess Consort' nonsense. Why though? Because poll after poll from various news groups EVEN NOW after their tour if you even believe in such things show that the majority of people are overwhelmingly against a Queen Camilla. They don't mind the marriage and neither do I.

And as for Elton John I would not want any friend of mine saying to the press that my father had married the wrong woman. That is a hurtful remark-it was uncalled for even if it is true. And I am willing to bet the bank Elton would never have said so while Diana was alive. I cannot imagine either of Diana's sons feeling pleased if they heard it. It is like 'don't talk about MY momma! If you don't want me to talk about YOURS'! That's just imo.

 

[ysbel]

Queen Mary I,

Where did I put all the blame on Diana? This really bugs me, with some people when we suggest that Charles doesn't bear all the blame for breaking Diana's heart we get accused of Diana-bashing or blaming her. We are not bashing Diana although it seems that the only way some people think to truly honor Diana's memory is to bash C&C and blame them for anything regardless of whether its substiated or not. I'm sorry but if that's the real lasting legacy of Diana its a poor legacy at best.

I've been close to a marriage that broke up like this and I know there is a certain point at which blame becomes irrelevant. But its obvious though now that we see Camilla, the wife Charles is apparently happy with now and we see she's nothing like Diana so it becomes obvious that Charles and Diana were not compatible at all. It should be self-evident that you can't blame people for being incompatible.

I think that is why Elton John along with others are now saying that Charles married the wrong woman. I don't know whether William or Harry would be insulted by his statement, it doesn't make Diana a bad person and it doesn't put blame on her for the marriage. The boys were close enough to the marriage to see that it was not working and they know more than the rest of us.

 

[Warren]

I know it's hard to separate the "relationship" factor from the topic of this thread, but discussions about Diana/Charles/Camilla should be more appropriately posted in the "Diana/Charles/Camilla Relationships" thread. Otherwise we have two threads more or less going over the same ground.

thanks,
Warren
British Forums Moderator

 

[Skydragon]

Like most of us I go by the articles, and interviews with 'friends' and 'courtiers' who speak to the press but are too cowardly to allow their names to be used. I believe there is more truth in the 'gossip' over the years.

Friends and courtiers 'close' to Charles and Camilla have said very little over the years.
Diana, on the other hand used her friends to release her version of events to the media. Some like Burrell, made it up as they went along. Anyone seeing him on 'gotya' programmes is able to see from his bowing, scrapeing and lying to supposed royalty, that most of what he says couldn't possibly be true.

I fail to see why as a new bride, you would expect your husband to throw out everything given him by a very good friend or former lover. You would have to be paranoid to feel threatened by your new husbands favourite pair of cufflinks. Would most of us even notice and if we did, would we not at the first opportunity buy something better. Only if he refused to wear my present would I be upset!

 

[Skydragon]

I know it's hard to separate the "relationship" factor from the topic of this thread, but discussions about Diana/Charles/Camilla should be more appropriately posted in the "Diana/Charles/Camilla Relationships" thread. Otherwise we have two threads more or less going over the same ground.

thanks,
Warren
British Forums Moderator

Sorry Warren!!

 

[branchg]

Yes, in reality, not in technicality. Prince Philip gave up his Greek title to become a British citizen as Lt. Philip Mountbatten. But, as far as dynastic concerns, his blood is most royal of all.

The marriages entered into by all the Crown Princes today would have been considered morganatic at one time. Sweden only changes its laws requiring equal marriages for royals in the 70s before Carl Gustaf married Sylvia.

Although it was somehow overlooked at the time, Philip was already a British citizen as a descendant of the Electress Sophia under the Act of Settlement as well as through his mother, Princess Alice.

Alice was also morganatic because her father, Prince Louis of Battenberg, was a mere Serene Highness as the son of Prince Alexander of Hesse and his morganatic wife, Julie von Haucke. Julie was very common indeed as the daughter of a Polish military attache in the Russian Army.

Philip is arguably more royal than the Queen, but not much.

 

[branchg]

I suppose the argument about the Queen and her children could apply due to the fact that the Queen Mum wasn't born royal meaning that her children, i.e. the Queen and Princess Margaret aren't completely royal and therefore their children aren't either.

In reality, they are not, but given the marriages between royals and commoners in the other European royal houses, the Queen and her descendants are far more royal by today's standards.