The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1741  
Old 01-02-2008, 11:01 PM
jcbcode99's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Richmond Area, United States
Posts: 1,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post
Because then Charles would be humiliated, stripped of his august position while she would be "the mother of the king" aka "King's Mum", a very important person at her son's court. Does that make sense?
Jo, I never even thought of it that way--my mind was completely on what was best for William--UNLIKE his mother who only wanted to humuliate Charles and regain some position and standing in the Royal Family. That is just cold--in a sense, because he would be so young, it would be like William was the sacrificial lamb so Diana could get even--even though that sounds pretty harsh. Do you think William would have given Diana back her HRH? I will say this--while I do think it was the proper thing to do, taking the HRH from Diana, it seems a little odd that the mother of the future King would not hold the HRH--does that make sense?
__________________

__________________
Janet

"We make a living by what we do; we make a life by what we give" Winston Churchill
  #1742  
Old 01-03-2008, 01:51 AM
milla Ca's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: N/A, Germany
Posts: 1,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by momo View Post
Hi all as I'm new here, If the Queen signs the final treaty with Europe in July 2008, Great Britain or England will effectively not exist any more. (England will be nine regions of the state of the UK in Europe). If this does go ahead our constitution will not exist and there will be no need for a Royal family at all, so maybe Charles and William will not reign. Mo.
You can support the idea of a unit Europe or not, but the EU hasn´t the target to get rid of sovereign states. Und it will not touch on any republic or monarchy.
So no fears, Charles will be the next ( great ) King!
__________________

__________________
´We will all have to account for our actions to our children and grand-children, and if we don´t get this right, how will they ever forgive us?´
Prince Charles in a speech, 6th December 2006
  #1743  
Old 01-03-2008, 03:50 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcbcode99 View Post
Do you think William would have given Diana back her HRH? I will say this--while I do think it was the proper thing to do, taking the HRH from Diana, it seems a little odd that the mother of the future King would not hold the HRH--does that make sense?
The sytsem in the UK works like that: wifes don't acquire a title of their own but share that of their husband. Children inherit the title from their father. So when Diana divorced, she did not longer have a husband, thus she was again what she was before: a Lady by courtesy. While William will keep his forever because he was born a prince of the blood Royal. So, no, it's not odd at all.
__________________
'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.
  #1744  
Old 01-03-2008, 04:41 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
Unless Parliament ceases to be Supreme (it won't, as I'm pretty sure it can still do whatever it wants to nullify the treaty), then the treaty wouldn't be able to effect Charles' or William's future ability to reign at all. Unless EU tanks start rolling down Whitehall, I don't think there's really much to worry about.
The EU is not about the way a country is represented. Thus, all EU states with monarchies (like Denmark, Norway, Sweden, The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, Spain, Monaco and the Vatican) kept their crowned head of state, of course. EU is about having common representatives in parliament (in each country the voters vote for their representatives in a common European parliament) and in administration (the governments of the EU countries decide together to appoint administrators to deal with laws and situation which concern all member countries.). Plus there is the European Court of Human Rights.

While the member states gave some of their souverainity to the EU parliament and EU administration, they haven't ceased to be independant states. It's just that the interests of the European Union are discussed and decided in political bodies where each country is represented but the decisions happen by majority. But there are veto-rights included, so there are no cases where countries are overruled by the others when it comes to their own interests. Negociations just take longer then till all are either staisfied or at least okay with a decision.

So HM Elizabeth II.will still be HM of the Uk, just as HM Beatrix is still HM of The Netherlands and HM Juan Carlos is still HM of Spain.
__________________
'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.
  #1745  
Old 01-03-2008, 11:01 AM
lilytornado's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: -, United States
Posts: 503
Monaco and the Vatican are not part of the EU.
  #1746  
Old 01-03-2008, 12:11 PM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilytornado View Post
Monaco and the Vatican are not part of the EU.
They are associated as they are connected through treaties about international representation to France (Monaco) and Italy (Vatican) which are EU-members. Plus they are members of the EU-customs territority and use the EURO as their currency. Through France and Italy respectively they are included into the Schengen-treaty. Thus they may be nominally not part of the EU but in practical life they are.

BTW - in the same way Norway is not a full EU-member but through signing the EEA free-trade deal and agreeing to Schengen etc. it is in practise already a part of the EU, even if not a full member.

__________________
'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.
  #1747  
Old 01-03-2008, 01:17 PM
jcbcode99's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Richmond Area, United States
Posts: 1,979
It makes perfect sense that Diana would lose the HRH upon her divorce, I completely understand and totally agree with that. I guess I should have clarified my question/comment, and please remember that I am still learning about such technicalities as this, but if William had become King and she were still alive, would he have had the ability to restore the HRH to her, based on her being the mother of the King?
__________________
Janet

"We make a living by what we do; we make a life by what we give" Winston Churchill
  #1748  
Old 01-03-2008, 06:46 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: carlisle, United Kingdom
Posts: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
Hmm. Not quite sure about that. The Lisbon Treaty has already been signed. It's not in effect yet but it's signed and sealed, done and dusted and the UK is still here. I think you've been reading a little too much of the Daily Mail.

I read the Sun, Mail and the Times ever since I became a law student, to get a balanced view of the press. Every paper has the same opinion of the latest treaty, that the people should decide whether we are subject to it. However I did not take any of their views. I took my own view of this country and the latest developments with regard to our privacy and how much we are monitored, (UK has 20% of the world's surveillance cameras), and typed into google, 'England police state'. Try it. Find out what our country is like.
  #1749  
Old 01-03-2008, 07:00 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,861
Well I agree with you about the surveilance thing but on the Lisbon Treaty, I'd suggest that you read the Treaty itself because there's no mention whatsoever of removing individual sovereignty or dissolving monarchies. If anything, the Lisbon treaty makes the EU more democratic and gives more power to national parliamentary bodies so the threat to Charles succeeding his mother because of the EU is non-existant.
__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
  #1750  
Old 01-03-2008, 07:15 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dallas Fort Worth, United States
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by momo View Post
I read the Sun, Mail and the Times ever since I became a law student, to get a balanced view of the press. Every paper has the same opinion of the latest treaty, that the people should decide whether we are subject to it. However I did not take any of their views. I took my own view of this country and the latest developments with regard to our privacy and how much we are monitored, (UK has 20% of the world's surveillance cameras), and typed into google, 'England police state'. Try it. Find out what our country is like.
I know I am going to get hand slapped for this, but I have to say that I understand your concern about 20% of the world's surveillance cameras. After 9/11 here, I am among what appears to be a minority that are VERY CONCERNED about our willingness to surrender some basic and cherished freedoms for so called security. I find it extremely troubling and alarming.
  #1751  
Old 01-03-2008, 07:23 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcbcode99 View Post
if William had become King and she were still alive, would he have had the ability to restore the HRH to her, based on her being the mother of the King?
He would be able to do so indeed. It wouldn't even need to officially be because of her being his mother. He could do it "just because" if he wanted.
  #1752  
Old 01-07-2008, 04:32 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
This morning I thought about my husband's grandmother turning 85 this week and suddenly thought that I bet Charles prays every night that his mother will continue to live and reign in good health for as long as possible.

Because I seriously doubt Charles will like to sit on the throne, have the right to be consulted and thus the right to know all and not be able to do anything. He will hate every decision which will be made in his name that he doesn't conform with and that will really pain him. He is too caring and too nice for the job - to be king you need a toughness of the soul that he might not want to possess. Just my thoughts....
__________________
'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.
  #1753  
Old 02-06-2008, 09:52 AM
KingJosh's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Penn Hills, United States
Posts: 37
I don't think that HRH the Prince of Wales should be allowed to reign. He doesn't know how to play the game, You marry for the good of the monarchy and not for yourself. He should not be allowed to reign since he married out of nobility.

And Jo of Palatine makes a good point His Royal Highness is too nice and caring to be King.
__________________
JIR
  #1754  
Old 02-06-2008, 10:05 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingJosh View Post
I don't think that HRH the Prince of Wales should be allowed to reign. He doesn't know how to play the game, You marry for the good of the monarchy and not for yourself. He should not be allowed to reign since he married out of nobility.

And Jo of Palatine makes a good point His Royal Highness is too nice and caring to be King.
Erm... I think exactly because he is a nice and caring man he will be a wonderful king one day. I only hope he will have the chance to continue the part of his work only the heir can do for as long as possible and then William can step right in.

Why do you think he married out of the nobility? Camilla has quite some Royal ancestors and her family is firmly established within the British aristocracy.

But on thinking so: prince William had not even a Royal mother as hasn't Haakon of Norway, who in addition married a commoner. Willem-Alexander of The Netherlands, Naruhito of Japan, Frederick of Denmark, Felipe of Spain, The Grand Duke of Luxemburg and the king of Sweden - they all married commoners. Philippe of Belgium and Queen beatrix settled on members of the minor aristocracy. Let's see if Victoria takes a husband of noble descent.... So in your opinion they are all not worthy to reign due to their choice of spouses? Back to the 1800s, are we?
__________________
'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.
  #1755  
Old 02-06-2008, 10:18 AM
KingJosh's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Penn Hills, United States
Posts: 37
You bring up a good point thanks for correcting me.

But
1. Aristocracy is not Nobility, Camilla may have had money but she didn't have a Title.
2. British royals have always been more inclined to marry royalty, especially if your the Heir to the throne.

I have the greatest respect for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II But isn't the whole reason Her Majesty is Queen in the first place is that her uncle HRH the Duke of Windsor couldn't perform his duty and marry royalty.
__________________
JIR
  #1756  
Old 02-07-2008, 07:11 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
To answer the last posting of the old thread:

Here's an interesting article about what nobility/aristocracy actually means in the UK. It's from Burke's guide: AN ESSAY ON THE POSITION OF THE BRITISH GENTRY PART 1

ARCHIVE - 4th EDITION (1862)

AN ESSAY ON THE POSITION OF THE BRITISH GENTRY (PART 1 OF 4).

from a time when being noble was much more important than it is today, so I think it is a better explanation than everything that is written nowadays: because if you were considered to be part of the nobility back then, of course you would be considered nobility today. While it doesn't work vice-versa:

A quote:

Within the last few centuries, the word nobility has been misapplied to signify exclusively those persons who have been raised to the peerage, and their immediate families. And the multitude of races of the ancient aristocracy which exist throughout England, without ever having been decorated with titles, together with the more remote cadets of the families of peers, have gradually lost the tradition of nobility, and, under the name of Commoners, have been confounded with those of recent origin, who in later times, have risen to wealth.
__________________
'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.
  #1757  
Old 02-07-2008, 07:59 AM
KingJosh's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Penn Hills, United States
Posts: 37
This is the 1862 deffinition, more than 100 years old, I think most people in this time think of Aristocracy as having money and Nobility as having a title. Can't you find a more recent Deffinition?
__________________
JIR
  #1758  
Old 02-07-2008, 12:35 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingJosh View Post
I think most people in this time think of Aristocracy as having money and Nobility as having a title.
Definitely not! Aristocrats have a title, that is handed down generation after generation, they may not have 'liquid assets' though!
  #1759  
Old 02-07-2008, 09:47 PM
KingJosh's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Penn Hills, United States
Posts: 37
Then what is an aristocrat's title? If someone can tell me Camilla's Title then fine.
Camilla's Former Titles (Encyclopedia of Kings and Queen's of Britain)
  • 17 July 1947 – 4 July 1973: Miss Camilla Rosemary Shand
  • 4 July 1973 – 3 March 1995: Mrs. Andrew Parker Bowles
  • 3 March 1995 – 9 April 2005: Mrs. Camilla Parker Bowles
Even her Coat of Arms shows that she is not noble.

(Encyclopedia of Arms)
However, aside from the invention of a boar supporter (reflecting her paternal arms) for the sinister side, the arms are entirely consistent with the historical heraldic arrangement for a married woman who is not herself a heraldic heiress.

From Encyclopidia Britannica:
Nobility: the quality or state of being noble in character, quality, or rank.

Her mother was the Daughter of the 3rd Baron Ashcombe but since a Baronies are not passed through the female line and her Father wasn't noble she had no title till she married His Royal Highness. And even then she uses the feminine form of Her husbands title as she is not royal in her own right.

Also from Britannica:
Aristocracy:
1 : government by the best individuals or by a small privileged class
2 a : a government in which power is vested in a minority consisting of those believed to be best qualified b : a state with such a government ( England is a Monarchy
3 : a governing body or upper class usually made up of an hereditary nobility
4 : the aggregate of those believed to be superior

1. Last i checked her conection to the royal family started with Charles Lennox, 1st Duke of Richmond an illegitimate son of Charles II which excludes him from the Royal line as only legitimate children are included.
2. Her Grandfather may have been a Baron and her mother a Duaghter of a baron but England isn't run by the The Rt. Hon. the Baron Ashcombe and his family is it? And since your status in England seems to be influenced more buy who your father was or is, she is merely more then a Major's Daughter who married the right person.
__________________
JIR
  #1760  
Old 02-07-2008, 10:07 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,377
In the book Albion's Seed about the first settlers of the American colonies, it talks about the collapse of the class system in Britain and how it caused a lot of migration to the Americas. I can't remember the exact number but it seems like at the beginning of the 16th century Britain had no less than 13 distinct social classes which were almost halved one hundred years later. A lot of the early American settlers came from the landed gentry that didn't have a title. They did have inherited right and privilege in a particular area (for example they would have the first right to a particular important judgeship in the area) that was above and beyond what the common folk had which was no more than the goods that were passed down from generation to generation. It was when this landed gentry class and its privileges began to disappear, that several families moved to the American colonies.
__________________

__________________
"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
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
american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian baby names british british royal family buckingham palace camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii family tree genetics george vi gustaf vi adolf harry and meghan highgrove history hochberg hypothetical monarchs jack brooksbank japan 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 monarchy mongolia mountbatten names plantinum jubilee pless politics portugal prince harry princess eugenie queen consort queen victoria royalty of taiwan st edward sussex suthida swedish queen taiwan thai royal family unfinished portrait united states united states of america welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:24 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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