The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1601  
Old 10-03-2007, 07:54 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
The British Government isn't interested in abolishing the constitutional monarchy and replacing it with a written constitution and a republican head of state. The monarchy represents continuity and the royal perogative held by the Crown is exercised by a parliamentary government with considerable powers.

Titles and styles are awarded to the living, not the dead. Diana's status as the mother of Prince William was recognized when she was granted full royal honours and a semi-state occasion at Westminster Abbey for her funeral. Restoring her style of HRH means little when she isn't around to enjoy it.

Charles is heir to the throne and has married Camilla with the approval and consent of the Government. She is his lawful wife and entitled to be Queen Consort when the time comes. If the public remains uneasy, Parliament can and will pass legislation denying her the right to share her husband's rank, allowing Charles to create her HRH The Princess Consort instead.
__________________

  #1602  
Old 10-03-2007, 08:21 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
Titles and styles are awarded to the living, not the dead. Diana's status as the mother of Prince William was recognized when she was granted full royal honours and a semi-state occasion at Westminster Abbey for her funeral. Restoring her style of HRH means little when she isn't around to enjoy it.

Charles is heir to the throne and has married Camilla with the approval and consent of the Government. She is his lawful wife and entitled to be Queen Consort when the time comes. If the public remains uneasy, Parliament can and will pass legislation denying her the right to share her husband's rank, allowing Charles to create her HRH The Princess Consort instead.
Once again I ask.."For what possible reason did they have to have a civil marriage service (specifically forbidden in the Marriage Act), if they had the approval and consent of the Church and the Archbishop of Canterbury (who must perform the coronation)?" and "what is the difference between the situation with Charles and Camilla v. David and Wallis?"
The only reason that Queen Elizabeth is on the throne today is that it was ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE that the King/Defender of the Faith be married to a divorcee. Queen Wallis anyone? Would those of you in the Camilla camp have been so accepting of Queen/Princess Consort Wallis?
__________________

  #1603  
Old 10-03-2007, 08:25 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the coronation oath requires the sovereign to swear to 'uphold the established church of England', which at this point does not recognise divorce or remarriage. The fact that it does not recognise divorce and remarriage was the reason that Charles and Camilla had a civil marriage and a service of dedication in the church, rather than marrying in the church. If he is 'not in good standing' as it were, how can he swear to uphold the church?
Swearing to uphold it (i.e. make sure it stays established) has nothing to do with his own standing in the church. So long as he promises to do his best to make sure it stays the way it is now, he is upholding the church. It has nothing to do with his own personal conduct, only his future conduct related to church affairs.
  #1604  
Old 10-03-2007, 08:45 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 8,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
Once again I ask.."For what possible reason did they have to have a civil marriage service (specifically forbidden in the Marriage Act), if they had the approval and consent of the Church and the Archbishop of Canterbury (who must perform the coronation)?" and "what is the difference between the situation with Charles and Camilla v. David and Wallis?"
The only reason that Queen Elizabeth is on the throne today is that it was ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE that the King/Defender of the Faith be married to a divorcee. Queen Wallis anyone? Would those of you in the Camilla camp have been so accepting of Queen/Princess Consort Wallis?
The key argument for accepting King Charles and Queen or Princess Consort Camilla is significant changes in the spirit of times. Manoeuvring in the legalities and slightly manipulating the public opinion will help to embrace the situation with the King and Queen as the life of Prince Charles mirrors the life of the subjects he represents so much.
As far as I have understood, the period 1930-1970 is viewed as dark ages.
  #1605  
Old 10-03-2007, 09:39 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,377
I think the legalities will have to be moved however they go; whether Camilla is a Queen or Camilla is a Princess Consort. As with any touchy political decision, I think the powers to be will decide at first what the desired outcome will be - they will either deny Camilla the Queenship or crown her Queen and only after then will they find the reasons to support their actions.

There isn't a precedent for a wife of a King not being a Queen although George IVs wife was locked out of his coronation on his orders. I doubt seriously if Charles is going to lock Camilla out of his coronation.

There is however a precedent of a King committing adultery against his Queen and then marrying the other woman. Henry VIII did it several times. He was rumoured to commit adultery with Anne Boleyn, his second wife, while married to Catherine of Aragon. He definitely committed adultery with Jane Seymour, his third wife, while married to Anne Boleyn, he was rumoured to commit adultery with Catherine Howard, his fifth wife, while still married to Anne of Cleves. BTW, he wouldn't give Catherine Howard a coronation until she bore him a child which she never did but she still was called the Queen.
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
  #1606  
Old 10-03-2007, 09:54 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 801
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
As regards to whether the Diana Claque will or wont successfully 'rise up' about Queen Camilla, and whether or not they are powerful enough, to quote Dominick Dunne 'the aristos hate her and the commoners love her'. Given the Republican sentiment and the 20 (probable) year wait for a passing of the sceptor, I am concerned that the man in the street might just prefer some one with less baggage (ie william) , rather than changing the constitution, etc. Or perhaps a President instead?Although as stated before, if APB dies before the coronation the problem goes away. Or for that matter, if Camilla dies before then, not that I am wishing the grim reaper on anyone. I still dont understand why Edward was not permitted to remain King if married to his divorcee while Charles was allowed to marry his divorcee and remain PoW. Isn't it the exact same situation? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am under the impression that the Charles and Camilla Marriage could not even be discussed when QEQM was alive. After all, the whole reason that she and her daughter were Queens was because Edward could not marry a divorcee
The Republican movement in the UK is a very minor movement. It was at it highest at the death of Diana (which supposedly brought the monarchy to its knees) at the time support for a republic rose to 20%. Since then it has dropped again to 9% and has remained there. There was no rise of support for a republic at C & C's marriage.

Traditionally monarchs are the most popular when they are young and when they are old. QEII also reflects this trend, Charles will garner more support as he ages, Camilla too. In 20 years time it isn't likely that there will be a higher amount of support for a republic. QEII also realised they had time on their side as she wanted Charles to marry Camilla while she (QEII) was still alive and active to give them time together and become accepted as an official couple. Smart woman as that's what's happening. Look even to Camilla in Madame Tussaud's, at her marriage MT said there were no plans for a Camilla waxwork to be made, since then the public have been asking for one and so recently a Camilla model has been placed in MT.

I've already stated there is no problem with APB's being alive as Charles was considered a divorcee by the Anglican church not a widower. The church recognizes divorce. He was a divorcee who married a divorcee.

The issue with Edward VIII was not that he wasn't allowed to marry a divorcee, that was just the excuse the government of the day used to get rid of an unsuitable King. Edward VIII was believed to have Nazi sympathies, he left State Secrets lying around, the government of the day was presented with a problem with him, they were also given a solution in his relationship with Wallis. At the abdication she was still married to her husband, it was Stanley Baldwin the Prime Minister at the time that gave Edward VIII the ultimatium, Wallis or the Crown. The government's assumption was that he would abdicate and thus ending their problem of the unsuitable King.
At his marriage Charles had the support of all 3 major political parties in the UK, there was no question of him being given any kind of ultimatium. Camilla being a divorcee wasn't an issue.

The Queen Mother was from the generation where 'one did not marry one's mistress', she was born in 1900. Marry a divorcee would not have been the major issue and being around at the abdication she would have well known that Edward VIII abdicated not because he wanted to marry a divorcee but rather that it was the excuse the government needed to remove him. In a constitutional monarch it's parliament who have the power to accept or reject the new monarch.

The Diana claque is strongest and most vocal with non-Brits. Eg "The Diana Circle" is actually founded and based in the US. This is also reflected in the royalty forums, generally the most virulent Diana supporters are not from the UK. ( the most critical of Diana are) While Diana will always be around as far as the papers and magazines will be concerned, time will fade the emotion that surrounded her. 10 to 20 years from now isn't going to see a 'rising' of the Dianaites to get rid of either Charles as King of the monarchy in general. Thoughout history the British monarchy has shown itself remarkably resilient to various events and crises.
  #1607  
Old 10-03-2007, 09:59 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 8,012
ysbel,
I am in full agreement with your opinion. However, Prince Charles is not going to be an absolute ruler of the country as Henry VIII was. Thus, Prince Charles and his advisors have to duly consider emotions of the crowd. Necessary legal issues have to and will be resolved to the satisfaction of the parties concerned.
  #1608  
Old 10-03-2007, 10:21 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
The British Government isn't interested in abolishing the constitutional monarchy and replacing it with a written constitution and a republican head of state.
I wouldn't be too sure. I think Tony Blair would have quite liked to do exactly that. He spent enough time trying to undermine the Queen in a lot of different ways. Whether the current PM feels the same way is another matter, of course.
  #1609  
Old 10-03-2007, 10:31 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 8,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
I wouldn't be too sure. I think Tony Blair would have quite liked to do exactly that. He spent enough time trying to undermine the Queen in a lot of different ways. Whether the current PM feels the same way is another matter, of course.
Tony Blair is a history, isn't he? Whatever he has done to undermine the Royal Family is not relevant right now or will not be relevant when the time comes for ascension to the throne.
  #1610  
Old 10-03-2007, 11:55 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
He's history, but some of the things he did have survived his tenure.
  #1611  
Old 10-04-2007, 05:48 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
As regards to whether the Diana Claque will or wont successfully 'rise up' about Queen Camilla, and whether or not they are powerful enough, to quote Dominick Dunne 'the aristos hate her and the commoners love her'.
I wonder why you would think an American writer could have any idea what aristo's or commoners in the UK feel about Camilla? Diana was disliked by some aristocrats, who felt she let the side down and loved by some commoners who were led to believe she was just like them.

Camilla is liked by the aristocrats, IMO, and disliked, at the moment by some commoners. Although we can see from her reception throughout the UK, the UK public is warming to her by the day and a large percentage of Highlanders love her, IMO.

I don't see the Diana circle with it's shrinking UK membership (it was reportedly 1000 at the time of C & C's wedding), rising up in anyway. Don't forget, these were the people who were going to mount massive demonstrations outside the registry office, when in fact the 5 or so that did turn up were 'pushed out' by the well wishers and barely got a mention in the media, (as far as I can recall).
  #1612  
Old 10-04-2007, 10:43 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 8,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
He's history, but some of the things he did have survived his tenure.
I could not imagine Tony Blair as a person, who severely discredited the British Royal Family. Why didn't he fully capitalize on emotions of the crowds after Princess' death and start the process of abolishment?
  #1613  
Old 10-04-2007, 10:59 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al_bina View Post
I could not imagine Tony Blair as a person, who severely discredited the British Royal Family. Why didn't he fully capitalize on emotions of the crowds after Princess' death and start the process of abolishment?
Because like all Prime Ministers, he came to understand how the constitutional monarchy benefits a sitting Prime Minister by allowing him/her to exercise the royal perogative.
  #1614  
Old 10-04-2007, 11:06 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 8,012
to Skydragon

I agree with you stating that aristocrats did not like Princess Diana much because she betrayed their traditions and broke protocols.
Aristocrats like and accept Duchess of Cornwall because Prince Charles fully supports her. Although I do not mean to offend anybody's feelings or sensitive nature, but namely royal mistresses and lovers were used by nobility to get favours from rulers.
  #1615  
Old 10-04-2007, 02:04 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,377
Adultery has alwasy been more common and accepted in aristocratic and royal circles where marriages were made to protect the bloodlines than it has been in middle class circles. Even Diana remained close friends with people she knew were committing adultery and she approved of it.

I seriously doubt though that Andrew Parker-Bowles was trying to get a favour from Prince Charles by sharing his wife.
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
  #1616  
Old 10-04-2007, 02:23 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dallas Fort Worth, United States
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al_bina View Post
I agree with you stating that aristocrats did not like Princess Diana much because she betrayed their traditions and broke protocols.
Aristocrats like and accept Duchess of Cornwall because Prince Charles fully supports her. Although I do not mean to offend anybody's feelngs or sensitive nature, but namely royal mistresses and lovers were used by nobility to get favours from rulers.
Diana wanted her cake and to eat it too, that is the heart of the matter.

Diana wanted to walk on the plush Royal carpeting that was reserved for Royalty in the palaces, she wanted the deference and respect that came from "HRH" and the men bowing and the women doing their curtsey to her, she wanted the money and fame. What she was unwilling to do was PAY THE PRICE for all of that. Diana took on a job when she married into the Royal Family, she was simply unwilling to do the work.

Diana LIED in order to get Prince Charles to marry her. She pretended that she LOVED the things that he did (hunting, fishing, horseback riding) when in truth she detested them and stopped engaging in those activities as soon as she was married to him.

Diana was damaged goods before she married Prince Charles, she was emotionally impaired from a horrible childhood, a cold father and a domineering maternal grandmother.

Diana was unwilling to accept that Prince Charles had and has a multitude of responsibilities and was not able to devote himself entirely to her and her emotional needs.

Camilla is the exact opposite and that is why she is such a better match for Prince Charles, imo.
  #1617  
Old 10-04-2007, 02:35 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 8,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel View Post
Adultery has alwasy been more common and accepted in aristocratic and royal circles where marriages were made to protect the bloodlines than it has been in middle class circles. Even Diana remained close friends with people she knew were committing adultery and she approved of it.

I seriously doubt though that Andrew Parker-Bowles was trying to get a favour from Prince Charles by sharing his wife.
Actually I have not meant Andrew Parker Bowles. At any case, his children will benefit from the marriage of their mother.
  #1618  
Old 10-04-2007, 02:47 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondBrg View Post
Diana wanted her cake and to eat it too, that is the heart of the matter...
.....Diana LIED in order to get Prince Charles to marry her. She pretended that she LOVED the things that he did (hunting, fishing, horseback riding) when in truth she detested them and stopped engaging in those activities as soon as she was married to him.
I agree, Diana struck me as being in love with the Prince of Wales and not Charles. I believe that Charles was pushed into marrying Diana by the media, her family and his sense of honour.
  #1619  
Old 10-04-2007, 02:49 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al_bina View Post
At any case, his children will benefit from the marriage of their mother.
In what way? Charles as godfather is reputed to have set up trust funds for them, but I can't see how else they might benefit.
  #1620  
Old 10-04-2007, 02:50 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 8,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondBrg View Post
Diana wanted her cake and to eat it too, that is the heart of the matter.

Diana wanted to walk on the plush Royal carpeting that was reserved for Royalty in the palaces, she wanted the deference and respect that came from "HRH" and the men bowing and the women doing their curtsey to her, she wanted the money and fame. What she was unwilling to do was PAY THE PRICE for all of that. Diana took on a job when she married into the Royal Family, she was simply unwilling to do the work.

Diana LIED in order to get Prince Charles to marry her. She pretended that she LOVED the things that he did (hunting, fishing, horseback riding) when in truth she detested them and stopped engaging in those activities as soon as she was married to him.

Diana was damaged goods before she married Prince Charles, she was emotionally impaired from a horrible childhood, a cold father and a domineering maternal grandmother.

Diana was unwilling to accept that Prince Charles had and has a multitude of responsibilities and was not able to devote himself entirely to her and her emotional needs.

Camilla is the exact opposite and that is why she is such a better match for Prince Charles, imo.
I would say that Prince Charles and Princess Diana underestimated each other and suffered because of it later. Although Princess Diana might have lied about her interests, Prince Charles was old enough to fairly judge her character and choose another appropriate lady to secure the bloodline. Princess Diana might not be viewed as a witch, who nagged the life out of innocent and poor Prince Charles. Each party "slept on the bed they made".
__________________

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 baby names birth britain britannia british british royal family camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house colorblindness commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels customs duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family life fashion and style gemstones george vi gradenigo gustaf vi adolf hello! henry viii hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs jack brooksbank japan kensington palace king edward vii lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists mongolia mountbatten names nara period pless politics prince harry princess eugenie queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen louise royal ancestry solomon j solomon spanish royal family st edward sussex suthida taiwan tradition united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:29 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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