Will Charles Ever Reign?

[jcbcode99]

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?

 

[milla Ca]

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!

 

[Jo of Palatine]

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.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

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.

 

[lilytornado]

Monaco and the Vatican are not part of the EU.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

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.

 

[jcbcode99]

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?

 

[momo]

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.

 

[BeatrixFan]

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.

 

[diamondBrg]

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.

 

[wbenson]

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.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

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....

 

[KingJosh]

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.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

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?

 

[KingJosh]

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.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

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.

 

[KingJosh]

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?

 

[Skydragon]

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!

 

[KingJosh]

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.

 

[ysbel]

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.

 

[love_cc]

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.

Camilla belongs to the landed gentry families not aristocrats families. Truly, Camilla does not have a title inherited from her father.because her father did not have one. Her father was a Major of the Army and he was -a Deputy Lieutenant of Sussex, and Vice-Lieutenant of East Sussex from 1974 until 1992.

Landed gentry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Skydragon]

Then what is an aristocrat's title? If someone can tell me Camilla's Title then fine.
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.

The country is indeed 'run' by many Rt. Hon's, as that is the courtesy title given to MP's. The country is 'run' by these people and not by Kings, Queens or any aristocrat!
The Right Honourable - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Honourable - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Most Honourable - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Camilla, as has already been pointed out comes from the 'landed gentry' but is descended from aristocrats.

Camilla's title is of course - Her Royal Highness, The Princess Charles Philip Arthur George, Princess of Wales and Countess of Chester, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Carrick, Baroness of Renfrew, Lady of the Isles, Princess of Scotland. - I rather think that beats any aristocrats title, don't you?

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Camilla, as has already been pointed out comes from the 'landed gentry' but is descended from aristocrats.

Camilla's title is of course - Her Royal Highness, The Princess Charles Philip Arthur George, Princess of Wales and Countess of Chester, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Carrick, Baroness of Renfrew, Lady of the Isles, Princess of Scotland. - I rather think that beats any aristocrats title, don't you?

Camilla's great-grandmother Alice Keppel was descended from two Stuart-princesses of Scotland, Charles is descended from Elizabeth Stuart, princess of Scotland, through her the electress Sophia inherited her right to the British throne.

But - and that's the important point: like in all monarchies, the souverain is the fount of honour. So it's HM's priviledge to ennoble people and that's what they are from then on. It's definately not you and me who have to decide if Camilla was noble enough to become The princess Charles, it was HM's privilege according to the Royal Marriage Act: once the souverain decides that a member of the Royal family may take a certain person as a bride or bridesgroom, this person is noble enough.

As the queen accepted Camilla as being equal to her son, I don't think we have a right to say she was not right in her decision.

 

[KingJosh]

But - and that's the important point: like in all monarchies, the sovereign is the fount of honour. So it's HM's priviledge to ennoble people and that's what they are from then on. It's definately not you and me who have to decide if Camilla was noble enough to become The princess Charles, it was HM's privilege according to the Royal Marriage Act: once the souverain decides that a member of the Royal family may take a certain person as a bride or bridesgroom, this person is noble enough.

As the queen accepted Camilla as being equal to her son, I don't think we have a right to say she was not right in her decision

Right she is now Noble because of Her Majesty making her noble but it's important to remember That should she divorce His Royal Highness, which isn't likely she would lose her title and most likely be known as, Mrs. Camilla Parker-Bowles, Duchess of Cornwall, as she has her Husbands title and is not a Princess in her own right. So while she is married to HRH the Prince of Wales she is his equal. If she was so noble her whole life then why didn't His Royal Highness marry her in the first place? I could care less what Her title is now she never had a title before she married His Royal Highness.

Camilla belongs to the landed gentry families not aristocrats families.

From Wikipedia:
In the 21st century, the term "landed gentry" is still used to some degree, as the landowning class still exists in a diminished form, but it increasingly refers more to historic than to current landed wealth or property in a family. Moreover, the respect which was once automatically given to members of this class by most British people has almost completely dissipated as its wealth, political power and social influence has declined, and other social figures have grown to take their place in the public's interest
This speaks for it self.

The country is indeed 'run' by many Rt. Hon's, as that is the courtesy title given to MP's. The country is 'run' by these people and not by Kings, Queens or any aristocrat!

And while it is true that The Right Honorable is the Courtesy title given to Privy counsel MPs, and members of the House of Lords, Which her grandfather the 3rd Baron Ashcombe never sat in and there for never had any political power in the country, the title does not make her noble since her father was not noble.

I'm not saying that Her Majesty doesn’t have the right to raise who she wants to noble or royal status and that HRH the Duchess of Cornwall doesn’t out rank all other Aristocratic title I’m simply saying the She was never titled or noble before marriage whether or not she or her family owned land.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Right she is now Noble because of Her Majesty making her noble but it's important to remember That should she divorce His Royal Highness, which isn't likely she would lose her title and most likely be known as, Mrs. Camilla Parker-Bowles, Duchess of Cornwall, as she has her Husbands title and is not a Princess in her own right. So while she is married to HRH the Prince of Wales she is his equal. If she was so noble her whole life then why didn't His Royal Highness marry her in the first place? I could care less what Her title is now she never had a title before she married His Royal Highness.

Apart from you, obviously noone cares if she had a title or not before she married the prince. And her name on divorcing the prince would be Camilla Mountbatten-Windsor, princess of Wales or Camilla Mountbatten-Windor, duchess of Cornwall. Why should she revert to the Mrs. Parker Bowles-style after a second divorce. Not that I think there will be a divorce.

Maybe you could write to Clarence House and simply ask the one person who knows why he did not marry her in the first place: HRH THe Prince of Wales? Please, share his answer with us.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I'm not saying that Her Majesty doesn’t have the right to raise who she wants to noble or royal status and that HRH the Duchess of Cornwall doesn’t out rank all other Aristocratic title I’m simply saying the She was never titled or noble before marriage whether or not she or her family owned land.

Why state the obvious? But it is a fact that the former Camilla Shand has a pedigree which is recognized by the aristocracy, that she was received in the highest circles when a debutante and that her marriage to Andrew Parker Bowles (a male line descendent of the Parkers, earls of Macclesfield) was considered an equal one. The fact that in britain the aristocracy does not grant any male descendent the right to the title of his father does not make the descendants less noble than their European counterparts. As in the rest of Europe, it's the relation that counts and the acknowledgement by your social class. I doubt Camilla Shand has ever been denied this acknowledgement.

Here in Germany, a certain young woman has the legal right to call her Xenia, Duchess of Saxony, princess of Saxony - that's what her birth certificate says as she is the illegitimate daughter (father unknown) of a lady with the name of Duchess of Saxony, princess of Saxony, who was born from a morganatic marriage. Is this girl acknowledged by the Margrave of Meissen, Head of the Royal House of Saxony? I sincerely doubt it. But she can give this name by law to all her children and they can give it to all their children and so on....

 

[KingJosh]

Here in Germany, a certain young woman has the legal right to call her Xenia, Duchess of Saxony, princess of Saxony - that's what her birth certificate says as she is the illegitimate daughter (father unknown) of a lady with the name of Duchess of Saxony, princess of Saxony, who was born from a morganatic marriage. Is this girl acknowledged by the Margrave of Meissen, Head of the Royal House of Saxony? I sincerely doubt it. But she can give this name by law to all her children and they can give it to all their children and so on....

Thats great that Gremany has diffrent rules on who can pass on titles but I don't think England is Germany, correct me if i'm wrong.

Apart from you, obviously noone cares if she had a title or not before she married the prince.

And if you don't care then why argue with me on the issue.

 

[Skydragon]

..... I’m simply saying the She was never titled or noble before marriage whether or not she or her family owned land.

And so?

The question, unless I got lost in the threads is 'Will Charles Ever Reign', not 'is his wife of noble birth' (which her peers say believe she is). Every title started with an ordinary person 'enobled' by the monarch or through marriage.

HM's maternal grandmother and gt. grandmother were not aristocrats.

 

[KingJosh]

I'm just trying to support an opinion i stated in the #4 thread that is apperently a touchy subject with Camilla fans I didn't think it would end up being a big huge discussion.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Thats great that Gremany has diffrent rules on who can pass on titles but I don't think England is Germany, correct me if i'm wrong.



And if you don't care then why argue with me on the issue.

Because I hadn't so far realised that you apparently are not here to discuss in a friendly and politely way with others and to get a bit more information or even knowledge of how things are some place else.