The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #761  
Old 11-11-2005, 11:52 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: San Francisco, United States
Posts: 217
The term commoner is frequently used to refer to those not of royal blood, but in Britain, this usage is incorrect. A commoner, in British law, is someone who is neither the Sovereign nor a noble. Therefore, any member of the Royal Family who is not a peer, such as HRH Prince William of Wales or HRH The Princess Royal, is a commoner, as is any member of a peer's family, including someone with a courtesy title, such as the Earl of Arundel and Surrey (eldest son of the Duke of Norfolk) or Lady Victoria Hervey (a daughter of the 6th Marquess of Bristol).

So, it's true, the late Queen Mother, as well as the others you mentioned, were commoners, even though they were all member's of peers' families. I think many people think that Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon or Lady Diana Spencer weren't commoners, but they were, as is Duchess of Cornwall.
__________________

  #762  
Old 11-12-2005, 12:15 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
Quote:
No it doesn't. Edward VIII didn't change his title of King because his father had died and had held the same title. It's exactly the same thing here. Can the title never be used again? Must no-one else ever be known as The Princess of Wales?

Monarchs should not grovel to the people, nor should they pander to public opinion - the Princess of Wales title was Diana's while she was married to Charles. Now it is Camilla's and I think it's wrong that she uses another title - The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall. It doesn't sound as if they are married at all.
I think it does make sense for Camilla not to be called Princess of Wales, given the history of how she got where she is. Public opinion isn't something the royal family should pander to, but it's also something they shouldn't be completely insensitive to either. Camilla is likely to be far more readily accepted as Queen if she didn't climb into the Princess of Wales title right away. If the people aren't ready to accept their monarch and his spouse, it's worse news for the monarch than it is for the people.
__________________

  #763  
Old 11-12-2005, 12:29 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by btsnyder
The term commoner is frequently used to refer to those not of royal blood, but in Britain, this usage is incorrect. A commoner, in British law, is someone who is neither the Sovereign nor a noble. Therefore, any member of the Royal Family who is not a peer, such as HRH Prince William of Wales or HRH The Princess Royal, is a commoner, as is any member of a peer's family, including someone with a courtesy title, such as the Earl of Arundel and Surrey (eldest son of the Duke of Norfolk) or Lady Victoria Hervey (a daughter of the 6th Marquess of Bristol).

So, it's true, the late Queen Mother, as well as the others you mentioned, were commoners, even though they were all member's of peers' families. I think many people think that Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon or Lady Diana Spencer weren't commoners, but they were, as is Duchess of Cornwall.
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.
  #764  
Old 11-12-2005, 12:55 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 589
At least Queen Mother and Diana did have a title before their marriage. How about Camilla? Her mother was an "honourable" that's all. So I think even Camilla was not qualified for her background without mentioning her past. I don't know how close Major Bruce Shand is to royal household and he seems to be very a self-depreciating and low key person. Camilla did not stand much chance to be Charles' wife at the first place. It is really sad for them.
  #765  
Old 11-12-2005, 12:55 AM
wymanda's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg
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.
Given that the Marriage of Queen Mary's paternal grandparents was morganatic you are a little off the mark there. Also, Prince Phillip was HRH Prince Phillip of Greece & Denmark prior to renouncing all of his titles before marrying Princess Elizabeth. If you want to get really technical the last true "Royal" marriage was Edward & Alexandra.
__________________
Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
  #766  
Old 11-12-2005, 12:58 AM
wymanda's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel
The first commoner Queen of England was Anne Neville, followed by Anne Boleyn, Catherine Howard, and the Queen Mother.
& Jane Seymour, Katharine Parr,.
__________________
Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
  #767  
Old 11-12-2005, 10:44 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: San Francisco, United States
Posts: 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by love_cc
At least Queen Mother and Diana did have a title before their marriage. How about Camilla? Her mother was an "honourable" that's all. So I think even Camilla was not qualified for her background without mentioning her past. I don't know how close Major Bruce Shand is to royal household and he seems to be very a self-depreciating and low key person. Camilla did not stand much chance to be Charles' wife at the first place. It is really sad for them.
Still, the Duchess of Cornwall is much, much more aristocratic than most crown princesses in Europe, including Crown Princess Mary, the Princess of Orange, the Princess of Asturias, and Crown Princess Mette-Marit. The only one who could remotely be called "noble" would be the Princess of Brabant.

She is also from a more aristocratic background that her brothers/sisters-in-law, Sarah, Duchess of York, the Countess of Wessex, or Cmdr. Laurance.
  #768  
Old 11-12-2005, 10:46 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: San Francisco, United States
Posts: 217
Sorry, would that be Duchess of Brabant?
  #769  
Old 11-12-2005, 11:47 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by btsnyder
She is also from a more aristocratic background that her brothers/sisters-in-law, Sarah, Duchess of York, the Countess of Wessex, or Cmdr. Laurance.
No, she doesn't. Sarah Ferguson has far more blue blood than Camilla.
  #770  
Old 11-12-2005, 11:52 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,912
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
We're not fanatics. We just want to see her in her rightful place. If she is married to our King then she is our Queen and to go against tradition to please those stuck in the past makes a complete farce out of the Monarchy. She IS the Princess of Wales and I call her that because again, thats her rightful title and I refuse to go against tradition to please the ghost of a dead ex-wife.
Well said Beatrixfan.
Diana should have lost the right to be called Princess of Wales when she divorced.:)
  #771  
Old 11-12-2005, 12:00 PM
corazon's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: -In some dark place-, Argentina
Posts: 2,046
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.
__________________
Today the world has embraced new royal Princesses in the form of Mary of Denmark and Maxima of the Netherlands. But it's questionable whether even these hugely popular, increasingly glamorous future Queens will ever capture the world's imagination in the same way as Diana.
As Mario acknowledges: "She really was a true Princess".
-www.theroyalist.net-
  #772  
Old 11-12-2005, 12:01 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: San Francisco, United States
Posts: 217
I agree with Bea, too, but I don't think Diana should have lost the title Princess of Wales when she divorced....no one else in the Royal Family or the peerage loses it when they divorce of when their spouses die. Nor does anyone have to relinquish their spouse's surname name when they divorce. She was no longer "HRH The Princess of Wales," she was "Diana, Princess of Wales," which is totally in keeping with tradition and appropriate for someone who was still considered a member of the Royal Family, and was, after all, the mother of a future king. Even Princess Margaret was Countess of Snowdon till the day she died, even though Lord Snowdon had remarried.

I agree with the person who said that if Camilla was good enough to marry the Prince of Wales non-morganatically and assume the style HRH, she's good enough to be publically styled HRH The Princess of Wales and, in due course, Queen Consort.
  #773  
Old 11-12-2005, 12:05 PM
corazon's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: -In some dark place-, Argentina
Posts: 2,046
sarah ferguson is the duchess of york not HRH, but she marry with another man (not Andrew) she lost the title, with diana was the same.
Was queen choise.
__________________
Today the world has embraced new royal Princesses in the form of Mary of Denmark and Maxima of the Netherlands. But it's questionable whether even these hugely popular, increasingly glamorous future Queens will ever capture the world's imagination in the same way as Diana.
As Mario acknowledges: "She really was a true Princess".
-www.theroyalist.net-
  #774  
Old 11-12-2005, 12:06 PM
corazon's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: -In some dark place-, Argentina
Posts: 2,046
and yeah, for law camilla is princess of wales, so why no is named the princess of wales, I dont know, by some reason they do not allow (the royal house).
__________________
Today the world has embraced new royal Princesses in the form of Mary of Denmark and Maxima of the Netherlands. But it's questionable whether even these hugely popular, increasingly glamorous future Queens will ever capture the world's imagination in the same way as Diana.
As Mario acknowledges: "She really was a true Princess".
-www.theroyalist.net-
  #775  
Old 11-12-2005, 12:07 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: San Francisco, United States
Posts: 217
Sarah, too, is "Sarah, Duchess of York," Not "HRH The Duchess of York."
  #776  
Old 11-12-2005, 12:09 PM
corazon's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: -In some dark place-, Argentina
Posts: 2,046
exactly......but if she remarry she lost the title.
Diana after the divorce the queen left all titles (too the Duchess of cornwall) but not HRH.
__________________
Today the world has embraced new royal Princesses in the form of Mary of Denmark and Maxima of the Netherlands. But it's questionable whether even these hugely popular, increasingly glamorous future Queens will ever capture the world's imagination in the same way as Diana.
As Mario acknowledges: "She really was a true Princess".
-www.theroyalist.net-
  #777  
Old 11-12-2005, 12:12 PM
Oppie's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 537
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.
  #778  
Old 11-12-2005, 12:17 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: San Francisco, United States
Posts: 217
Exactly, Oppie. I think the strength of the Monarchy lies in it's continuity and it's stability. It seems that too many exceptions have been made with everything involving Diana. I think it's a slippery slope when you start making new rules and exception because of the whims of the day.

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. But the hysterical masses somehow determined that it should for some reason.
  #779  
Old 11-12-2005, 12:25 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,861
Re:

Quote:
exactly......but if she remarry she lost the title.
Diana after the divorce the queen left all titles (too the Duchess of cornwall) but not HRH
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.
__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
  #780  
Old 11-12-2005, 12:26 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,861
Quote:
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. But the hysterical masses somehow determined that it should for some reason.
That was the Royal Standard. The Queen was in residence and so the Royal Standard was flown. But it never flies at half mast. In the end, the Queen bowed to public opinion and the Union Jack was flown at half-mast instead, even though the Queen was in residence.
__________________

__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
Closed Thread

Tags
prince charles, prince of wales


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
Reign of Felipe VI: How Will Things Be Different? muriel King Felipe VI, Queen Letizia and Family 90 01-03-2017 06:30 PM
“The Lady Queen: the Notorious Reign of Joanna I, Queen of Naples, Jerusalem, and Sic An Ard Ri Royal Library 0 07-06-2014 07:27 PM
Is Victoria Ready to Reign? NotAPretender Crown Princess Victoria, Prince Daniel and Family 20 06-19-2011 07:05 AM
Elizabeth II: Oldest British Monarch (Dec 20 2007); 2nd Longest Reign (May 12 2011) WindsorIII Queen Elizabeth II 33 05-30-2011 07:40 AM




Popular Tags
america archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian baby names birth britain britannia british royal family 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 customs daisy duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family life family tree fashion and style gemstones george vi gradenigo hello! henry viii highgrove hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs jack brooksbank japan jewellery kensington palace książ castle lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers medical monarchist movements monarchists mongolia mountbatten nara period pless politics portugal prince harry princess eugenie queen elizabeth ii queen louise royal ancestry royalty of taiwan solomon j solomon spanish royal family suthida taiwan thai royal family tradition united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:53 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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