The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1841  
Old 06-14-2009, 02:09 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
With the vast array of goodies that will be at her disposal, will Camilla be distraught at not wearing one or two bits and pieces anyway?
With two tiaras currently in her possession that were worn by Queen Elizabeth and Queen Mary, as well as many other significant jewels, I doubt Camilla will be distraught that she doesn't have enough to wear that is worthy of her status.

And whether she is Queen or styled Princess Consort, there are plenty of other jewels from The Sovereign's personal collection at her disposal, not to mention any pieces The Queen gives her or leaves as a bequest.
__________________

  #1842  
Old 06-14-2009, 02:16 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 1,262
You all have some good points here.I'll just add my opinion:I believe Prince Charles is going to be a great King and the Duchess of Cornwall will stand by him & fill all of her duties.We're talking about a highly educated & intelligent royal couple.
__________________

  #1843  
Old 06-14-2009, 10:37 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
Constitutionally, she is Queen automatically in her own right when Charles assumes the throne. To be known as HRH The Princess Consort requires The Sovereign to issue letters patent creating Camilla as such.

Since being a Royal Highness and Princess in your own right when you are legally Queen has no precedent, Parliament would have to agree and consent to changing the style and title of the succession. It is a lesser rank for the King's wife and creates a morganatic marriage.

I personally do not think this will come to pass nor do I believe Parliament will agree she can be known as Princess Consort without legislation.
Well, there was no precedent for the marriage of a Prince of Wales (or King) to a divorced woman, but the rules were bent to facilitate the marriage of Charles and Camilla. There has, however, been the precedent of a recent HRH whose wife was denied one, at the whim of the sovereign. If Charles was not being disingenuous at the time of the marriage, he certainly has the ability to make her Princess Consort at the stroke of a (King's) pen.
  #1844  
Old 06-15-2009, 04:55 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,912
Luckily the CoE and most of the world have moved on and live in the 21st century, where divorcees are treated as human beings.
  #1845  
Old 06-15-2009, 08:44 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,587
Perhaps 'divorcees are treated as human beings', but The Queen (or King) is supposed to be an example and moral leader. We shall see if the C of E has 'moved on' when Charles' Coronation and the concept of 'Queen Camilla' is no longer an abstract , In My Humble Opinion.
  #1846  
Old 06-16-2009, 02:17 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Middlewich, United Kingdom
Posts: 21,388
I really do hope that Camilla becomes Princess Consort not Queen. If she did then I think it would be unfair to Philip as he has never had the title King. I know times will have changed but the same principles still apply in my book. But I hope she is recognised as Charles' equal and does not stay the Duchess of Cornwall.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
  #1847  
Old 06-16-2009, 05:11 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by lumutqueen View Post
I really do hope that Camilla becomes Princess Consort not Queen. If she did then I think it would be unfair to Philip as he has never had the title King. I know times will have changed but the same principles still apply in my book. But I hope she is recognised as Charles' equal and does not stay the Duchess of Cornwall.

In Britain there are clear cut differences between men and women and what they gain on marriage regarding titles/styles etc.

A woman takes on the female form of her husband's styles/titles whereas a man doesn't.

To deny Camilla the title of Queen Consort gives her lesser rights than every other woman in Britain, in my opinion.

Philip - being the husband of a Queen Regnant has followed the precedence of other Consorts of Queens Regnant - Albert and George of Denmark and remained a Prince.

Camilla needs to follow the precedence of other wives of Kings and become Queen Consort ala Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, Queen Mary, Queen Alexandra, Queen Adelaide, Queen Caroline etc.

The fact that Philip and Camilla are different genders means that they really can't be compared.

If Camilla isn't to be Queen Consort then, in my opinion NO woman can take the titles/styles of their husband but keep their birth status only - so no Princess of Wales, Queens Consort, Duchesses etc.

To apply one standard to one woman is an insult to that woman.
  #1848  
Old 06-16-2009, 08:32 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,587
To me it's a question of whether you take Charles at his public 'word' the it is intended that Camilla be known as the Princess Consort. If that is truly what the then King Charles intends, then all he has to do is issue letters patent and sign his name, and it's done, and the whole Queen Camilla, xyz fight goes away. Why continue the fight?
  #1849  
Old 06-16-2009, 08:37 PM
Marsel's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 954
Personally I would agree to Camilla being known as Princess Consort (perhaps out of respect for the Duke of Edinburgh, although he is not, and has never been a Prince Consort), only on one condition; if all future spouses of the British Monarch were known as Prince/Princess Consort.
That would be fair and truly equal.

However, to deny Camilla the title that is rightfully hers (once Charles becomes King), is really insulting, as Iluvbertie rightfully said.


Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter
To me it's a question of whether you take Charles at his public 'word' the it is intended that Camilla be known as the Princess Consort. If that is truly what the then King Charles intends, then all he has to do is issue letters patent and sign his name, and it's done, and the whole Queen Camilla, xyz fight goes away. Why continue the fight?
Scooter, Letters Patent would not be enough to 'solve' this issue; if Camilla is to be granted the title of the Princess Consort in her own right and intends to be known as such, that would require a Parliament legislation, not just from the British/Scottish Parliaments, but also from the Parliaments of all the countries of the Realm, that will recognize Charles as their King (thanks to branchg, who cleared up that point for me).
__________________
Audentes fortuna iuvat - Fortune favours the bold *** ... ***Amore, more, ore, re - Love, behaviour, words, actions *** ... ***Aquila non capit muscas - An eagle does not hunt flies
  #1850  
Old 06-16-2009, 09:02 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,587
Just My Opinion, but I think it's likely that quite a few major members of the Commonwealth/Realm will not be 'recognizing Charles as their king'. My personal wager is that the death of QEII, will ring the death knell on the Commonwealth. Everyone loves HM. Her heir and his future 'Queen' do not inspire quite so much enthusiasm, if you read the ongoing press of the Realm on the subject. Canada, New Zealand and Australia would be high on the list.
  #1851  
Old 06-16-2009, 09:04 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
I doubt legislation will be passed when the time comes. They're already married and she shares equal rank with her husband. Why should she be denied the right to be Queen? If she wasn't good enough, then they never should have married in the first place.

Wallis was an entirely different matter. She was already divorced once and, then proceeded with another divorce at The King's behest. Edward knew the Government was adamantly opposed to a marriage and wanted to abdicate. He paid the price for his decision and renounced the rights of any future descendants under the Act of Settlement. Given that point, George VI refused to allow his wife and any children to take the style and rank of HRH, limiting them to the Peerage.
  #1852  
Old 06-16-2009, 09:07 PM
Marsel's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 954
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter
Just My Opinion, but I think it's likely that quite a few major members of the Commonwealth/Realm will not be 'recognizing Charles as their king'. My personal wager is that the death of QEII, will ring the death knell on the Commonwealth. Everyone loves HM. Her heir and his future 'Queen' do not inspire quite so much enthusiasm, if you read the ongoing press of the Realm on the subject. Canada, New Zealand and Australia would be high on the list.
I believe that the death of Queen Elizabeth (long may she live) will only bring the King and the countries of the Realm closer; the death of one Monarch and the accession of the other were usually times of great national unity across the Empire (and later the Commonwealth). I sincerely doubt the nationalists would choose the moment of Her Majesty's death to push forward their agenda - that would be just tacky.

With the possible exception of Australia, I just don't see any other country, where anti-Monarchist movements are strong enough to affect the course of events, once Charles is King.


Branchg, I agree with you that it is highly unlikely the Parliaments (whether British or the Commonwealth ones) will pass, or are asked to pass a legislation like that. Camilla is the wife of the Prince of Wales; once Charles is King, she shouldn't be denied the title that is rightfully hers.
__________________
Audentes fortuna iuvat - Fortune favours the bold *** ... ***Amore, more, ore, re - Love, behaviour, words, actions *** ... ***Aquila non capit muscas - An eagle does not hunt flies
  #1853  
Old 06-16-2009, 10:18 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,305
All 10 provinces in Canada have to vote the same way in order to change part of our Constitution. The likelihood of that happening to abolish the monarchy isn't very likely. For one thing, some provinces are more loyal than others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
Just My Opinion, but I think it's likely that quite a few major members of the Commonwealth/Realm will not be 'recognizing Charles as their king'. My personal wager is that the death of QEII, will ring the death knell on the Commonwealth. Everyone loves HM. Her heir and his future 'Queen' do not inspire quite so much enthusiasm, if you read the ongoing press of the Realm on the subject. Canada, New Zealand and Australia would be high on the list.
  #1854  
Old 06-16-2009, 10:53 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
The Crown Commonwealth nations would automatically recognize the new Sovereign as head of state, the same as the United Kingdom, under the Act of Settlement. Of course, they could choose to deestablish the Crown with legislation and become republics at any time.

The Commonwealth of Nations has to formally appoint a new Sovereign as the head. While in practice this should be routine, it is not automatic nor legally bound to the Crown. The members all have to assent to it.
  #1855  
Old 06-16-2009, 10:55 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 4,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marsel77 View Post
Personally I would agree to Camilla being known as Princess Consort (perhaps out of respect for the Duke of Edinburgh, although he is not, and has never been a Prince Consort), only on one condition; if all future spouses of the British Monarch were known as Prince/Princess Consort.
That would be fair and truly equal.

However, to deny Camilla the title that is rightfully hers (once Charles becomes King), is really insulting, as Iluvbertie rightfully said.
This is how I feel, too. I think it's very unjust.

I think it's most unfortunate that the official monarchy site currently says she will be known as The Princess Consort when Charles accedes. It was easy to argue that the statement of intent made at the time of the marriage was just that: a statement of what was intended at that time, and that things changed. But for the site to still say she will be so known makes it harder to change tack when the time comes.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
  #1856  
Old 06-16-2009, 11:04 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
Well, maybe when the time comes it's going to be "oopsie, whoever knew that we'd need to jump through all those legal hoops?"

and we can all just say "we did..."
  #1857  
Old 06-16-2009, 11:55 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
Well, there was no precedent for the marriage of a Prince of Wales (or King) to a divorced woman, but the rules were bent to facilitate the marriage of Charles and Camilla.
If there was no precedent what rules would there have been needing to be bent?
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
  #1858  
Old 06-17-2009, 03:22 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
If there was no precedent what rules would there have been needing to be bent?


I think Scooter was referring to the fact that the CofE was easing its attitude to divorcees in the late 90s.

Some people see this attitude change as happening because of Charles rather than the fact that it was happening anyway and Charles was able to benefit by being able to marry the woman he loves despite both of them being divorced. The new official attitude just formulated what had been fairly common practice anyway.

I might add there has never been any legislation that denied the throne to a divorced person or one married to a divorced person.
  #1859  
Old 06-17-2009, 04:40 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 801
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
Just My Opinion, but I think it's likely that quite a few major members of the Commonwealth/Realm will not be 'recognizing Charles as their king'. My personal wager is that the death of QEII, will ring the death knell on the Commonwealth. Everyone loves HM. Her heir and his future 'Queen' do not inspire quite so much enthusiasm, if you read the ongoing press of the Realm on the subject. Canada, New Zealand and Australia would be high on the list.
Australians don't look to their leaders for moral guidance, they are more interested in 'can they do the job'. In the past Australians have voted in a Prime Minister (and also re-elected him) who had publicly admitted that he was an alcoholic and had repeatedly been unfaithful to his wife. The republican debate in Australia focuses solely on Australians having a Head of State who is Australian and lives in Australia. Charles's private life is not a factor, not even the tabloid press or women's magazines make it an issue.
New Zealand had a republican Prime Minister who recently was voted out of office, the new government has just reinstated Imperial Honours, New Zealanders again can be created Peers (Sir, Dame) Charles's private life isn't an issue.
Canada's likelihood of becoming a republic is miniscule due to the fact that it would be so difficult and also would fire up the whole separatist issue with Quebec, no government in Canada would like to open that can of worms.

Besides these 3 countries, there are another 13 that recognise the British monarch as Head of State there is nothing coming from them in relation to becoming republics when Charles becomes king.

Tabloid stories and moralistic attitudes don't change systems of government. Far more intellectual arguments do.
  #1860  
Old 06-17-2009, 06:53 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,868
I'm with you on this. New Zealand has had Prime Minister's with less than pristine backgrounds. To be honest, we just can't be bothered being the "Morality Monitors" that some non-citizens seem to expect. And, as Charlotte 1 noted, we recently voted out a sort-of, may-be, wanna-be, Republican-leaning, government. The acceptance of the anti-Republican move reflects in the acceptance of the reinstatement of the Imperial Queens Birthday Honours List IMHO reflects a feeling that an ex politician as Head of State leaves something to be desired.

Strangely enough the Monarchy in the person of HM Queen Elizabeth II and her stalwart hubby, not to mention her heir Prince of Wales and his wife the Duchess of Cornwall, seem to be perceived as a sort of stabilising institution in a very unstable time!
__________________

__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
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 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 highgrove hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs jack brooksbank japan kensington palace king edward vii książ castle lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists mongolia mountbatten nara period pless politics 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 04:38 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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