The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   British Royals (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/)
-   -   The Monarchy under Charles (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/the-monarchy-under-charles-16252.html)

O-H Anglophile 12-13-2017 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade (Post 2050694)

It is sadly in SOME respects to close to a Bravo or E! show.

I disagree--not even close for the past 20 years.

jacqui24 12-13-2017 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade (Post 2050694)
The Queen has been steadfast in her role. Charles...outspoken. His marriages had and have their challenges. The younger royals have grown up with a desire to be us but still be them.

I sometimes think in their goodhearted desire to be more open, William, Catherine and Harry have behaved along the lines of reality TV people, and not royals in the sense of one must not let the daylight in, so to speak.

We have to remember that this letting the daylight in thing started with the Queen. I do think there are improvements that the younger generation has made in terms of talking about issues that weren't talked about before. The younger ones have not made it into a reality television by any means. I would say the reality television aspect of the royal family started well before the actual reality television with the War of Waleses. Charles is hugely unpopular due to the stiffiness he gives off at times and also his marriages. However, one thing I don't think he gets enough credit for is the work he has done as Prince of Wales. They seem to be taking a backseat because people aren't as interested in the mundanes of issues rather than the drama that is the royals' personal life.

I think even during the Queen's reign, there has been criticisms of her and how she runs of the monarchy, but she has adapted to a certain extent and has been around for so long that people nowadays have a lot of deference for her.

Lady Nimue 12-13-2017 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacqui24 (Post 2050703)
We have to remember that this letting the daylight in thing started with the Queen.

Agree. :flowers: It was the Queen in the late 1960's who began opening up the monarchy with that initial documentary. Charles continued to follow that lead with all the documentaries he allowed in the 1980's with his marriage to Diana. Even so, the openness still had a boundary. It was Diana who breached all boundaries and ran with an 'openness' with the media in a way the Queen (and Charles) never dreamed (I think we can safely say that). :sad: Wayyyy too much daylight was let in with Diana taking 'openness' to a full throttle extreme.

With William and Harry we now have a reverting to the privacy and closed aspect of the pre-documentaries days (so I would disagree with a previous poster on this). Would others agree? It is true that Harry exhibits more of his mother's tendency to use the media/public as a shoulder but I don't think the tabloid press coverage of William, Catherine and Harry (altogether) should be conflated with 'openness' by these three royals. If anything these three are far tighter with their privacy than Diana. JMO.

jacqui24 12-13-2017 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Nimue (Post 2050717)
With William and Harry we now have a reverting to the privacy and closed aspect of the pre-documentaries days (so I would disagree with a previous poster on this). Would others agree? It is true that Harry exhibits more of his mother's tendency to use the media/public as a shoulder but I don't think the tabloid press coverage of William, Catherine and Harry (altogether) should be conflated with 'openness' by these three royals. If anything these three are far tighter with their privacy than Diana. JMO.

I don't think Harry necessarily used the public as a shoulder. He talked about the issues he's had with his mom's death only after he's dealt with it. And it wasn't done to whine or do a poor me tour, but rather highlight and issue that he wants to improve on. He only shared his struggles to tell others it is ok to admit having this problem and seek help. As for the statement about Meghan, I saw that as more pushing back on quite disgusting coverage of his personal life rather than opening up his personal life. I think if the press had just outed that they were dating, and the thinly veiled headlines didn't happen, he would've just gotten on with it.

Rudolph 03-09-2018 07:01 PM

“Prince Charles and Camilla's new website has removed statements saying she will be known as Princess Consort when he becomes King”

Read more: Queen Camilla: Duchess of Cornwall poised to get title as Princess Consort plan is 'ditched'

Terri Terri 03-09-2018 07:29 PM

I was an avid Princess Diana fan but goodness...the woman has been dead for more than 20 years! I have recently started to warm up to Charles and Camilla, especially with their support of Harry and Meghan. It's time that this nonsense ends...Camilla should be called the Princess of Wales and be the future Queen. end of story.

rominet09 03-09-2018 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terri Terri (Post 2080328)
I was an avid Princess Diana fan but goodness...the woman has been dead for more than 20 years! I have recently started to warm up to Charles and Camilla, especially with their support of Harry and Meghan. It's time that this nonsense ends...Camilla should be called the Princess of Wales and be the future Queen. end of story.

I totally agree with you ! And I have always felt this !:flowers:

Dman 03-09-2018 08:44 PM

I think Camilla won over a lot of respect by not officially going by the title of Princess of Wales. She simply didn’t need to be addressed by that title. She very successfully carved out her own royal role under the title Duchess of Cornwall. A very smart move by a very smart cookie!!

By The Queen appointing the Duchess to Her Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy Council, I think it’s pretty obvious that Camilla is on her way to being Queen Consort.

The Mark Bolland campaign worked.

Madame Verseau 03-10-2018 01:53 PM

If you go by a recent poll there is still pushback by the public for Camilla to be queen consort. This news about the website looks like a trial balloon to test current attitudes, especially with Meghan and Harry on the scene. I wonder if all the stories of Camilla being a sounding board for Meghan and Kate for marrying into the BRF a PR effort to soften Camilla's image more?

Missjersey 03-10-2018 02:09 PM

She should be Queen.

Osipi 03-10-2018 02:17 PM

I, for one, have always thought that as a married couple, when Charles becomes King, Camilla should be his Queen Consort. Its been the tradition of how things have been done for a very long time and to bring in the couple's private life and times and people's opinion on it just seems to be very wrong to me.

If the precedent is set with Camilla being Princess Consort (or anything other than Queen Consort), it would be something set into motion that would affect not only Camilla but also Kate and all future wives of Kings. To single out Camilla solely because "the public doesn't like her" is discriminatory and to me, persecuting a person for actions made in their private life.

I don't believe this will happen. It would rule out any woman in the future from being Queen Consort and, in that respect, tarnish the monarchy itself.

gerry 03-10-2018 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 2080452)
I, for one, have always thought that as a married couple, when Charles becomes King, Camilla should be his Queen Consort. Its been the tradition of how things have been done for a very long time and to bring in the couple's private life and times and people's opinion on it just seems to be very wrong to me.

If the precedent is set with Camilla being Princess Consort (or anything other than Queen Consort), it would be something set into motion that would affect not only Camilla but also Kate and all future wives of Kings. To single out Camilla solely because "the public doesn't like her" is discriminatory and to me, persecuting a person for actions made in their private life.

I don't believe this will happen. It would rule out any woman in the future from being Queen Consort and, in that respect, tarnish the monarchy itself.

I wonder if this reluctance/hesitation regarding the queen consort title might also have to do with the perceived gender inequity of the male version of the Camilla conumdrum so famously objected to by the late Danish Prince Consort Henrik i.e. why can't men be kings when they marry a Queen:bang::lol:

Lady Gudgeon 03-10-2018 02:49 PM

I think the spouse - whether male or female - should always be a lessor title than the monarch. So, just like Philip is Prince (Consort), so too should Camilla (and Kate and George's wife) be Princess Consort. In a sense, this is more equal - to keep the spouse's styling/title the same whether the monarch is male or female. Maybe a compromise could be to have the spouse created a prince/princess in their own right. So - again, as with Prince Philip - Camilla would become Princess Camilla and Kate would be Princess Catherine.

I also think it has been Charles's plan all along to have her crowned queen, so I don't appreciate what, to me, has been his sneakiness/dishonesty/manipulation about "oh no, she'll be princess consort, not queen" and then the little trial balloon comments like "we'll see" when someone asked him (and her) years ago about whether Camilla will be queen. I feel like if it was his wish and/or intention from the start then he should have been honest and fought for her to get the title he wanted and just taken whatever lumps came along with people being upset about it.

I think, in the end, she'll be styled queen consort. I don't really care all that much, but I don't like Charles's lying about it from the start (since I do think this was his plan all along, as I stated above).


Gerry - the male consort can't be style king because king outranks queen and you can't have the spouse outranking the monarch. Hence my argument that it is more equitable for all spouses (regardless of gender of the monarch) to be prince/princess.

Osipi 03-10-2018 03:00 PM

I don't think Camilla's title when Charles is King has anything whatsoever to do with Prince Henrik's espousing he wanted to be king.

None of this title conundrum for Camilla would ever have come about if the War of the Wales wasn't such a public spectacle and the grand soap opera of the 80s and 90s. People took sides and declared camps and some of those people just cannot let that war go decades later.

Rudolph 03-10-2018 03:06 PM

The Princess Consort was a fugazy from the start.

The darn thing about is its a problem of Charles own making. Polls show Camilla is liked but shouldn’t be Queen. Well it was CH who gave the public a ‘b’ option.

We’ve never had Princess Consorts. It would be a complete fabrication.

Unbelievably it’s the tabloids that now have the moral authority.

They can say “aha you lied for 13 years”.

For the record she’ll be Queen and deserves it simply by right of marriage.

Pranter 03-10-2018 03:18 PM

The fact that the heir to the throne was allowed to marry a divorcee with a living husband ...you can forget about the rest of the objections. Doesn't make much difference about her title. Just like the PoW issue..she IS the PoW she just does't use the title.


LaRae

Somebody 03-10-2018 04:19 PM

I think it was a wise decision to have her be known as 'the Duchess of Cornwall' as the title 'Princess of Wales' was very much linked to Diana. However, Diana never was nor would have been if still alive Queen Diana, so I have never grasped why Camilla couldn't be known as queen.

Mbruno 03-10-2018 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terri Terri (Post 2080328)
I was an avid Princess Diana fan but goodness...the woman has been dead for more than 20 years! I have recently started to warm up to Charles and Camilla, especially with their support of Harry and Meghan. It's time that this nonsense ends...Camilla should be called the Princess of Wales and be the future Queen. end of story.

It would be a huge PR mistake if Charles went back on his decade-old "intention"(as it used to be called on his website) and had Camilla crowned queen, when most polls show that is not what the British people want. It would only add to the pressure on Charles to abdicate in favor of William, which is already considerable, especially as he gets older and the Queen continues to reign.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Gudgeon (Post 2080459)
I think the spouse - whether male or female - should always be a lessor title than the monarch. So, just like Philip is Prince (Consort), so too should Camilla (and Kate and George's wife) be Princess Consort. In a sense, this is more equal - to keep the spouse's styling/title the same whether the monarch is male or female. Maybe a compromise could be to have the spouse created a prince/princess in their own right. So - again, as with Prince Philip - Camilla would become Princess Camilla and Kate would be Princess Catherine.

Or you could have it the other way around, i.e. give the husband of the reigning queen the title of king and the style of Majesty, as it used to be the case in Portugal and Spain in the past, and even in the British Isles in the days of Mary I Tudor and Mary, Queen of Scots.

Osipi 03-10-2018 05:39 PM

On the other hand, if the public has that much sway over how the monarch's wife should be known as and the monarchy bows under the pressure to placate the public's sensibilities, its the first step in showing the public they really don't need a monarchy anymore.

When the statement was made of the intention, it was also at a time when Camilla had no clue of how she would adapt to royal life. It may have been Camilla, herself, that wanted to leave options open. Camilla has since grown into her role with grace and dignity and may feel comfortable even with being Charles' Queen Consort.

The main point though is that should things change and Camilla become the Princess Consort, the UK will never have a Queen Consort again. Its just not right to single out one person for a different title because of "popular opinion".

Mbruno 03-10-2018 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 2080492)
On the other hand, if the public has that much sway over how the monarch's wife should be known as and the monarchy bows under the pressure to placate the public's sensibilities, its the first step in showing the public they really don't need a monarchy anymore.

When the statement was made of the intention, it was also at a time when Camilla had no clue of how she would adapt to royal life. It may have been Camilla, herself, that wanted to leave options open. Camilla has since grown into her role with grace and dignity and may feel comfortable even with being Charles' Queen Consort. .

Nice try, but he kept the "intention" on his website for 13 years, thus long after he got married and Camilla "adapted" to the role. I don't see how he cannot be accused of misleading the public if he backtracks now.

King Edward VIII gave in to public opinion when he was told marrying Wallis was not an option (for the record, at the time, he actually suggested a "princess consort" solution, which was turned down). One could have argued that, if public opinion can force a king to abdicate, so it can also overthrow the monarchy. That has been the case, however, in England since 1649 at least, so there is nothing new really. The monarchy always depends on popular support to survive and that is why Charles should be wise to keep his promises.

Osipi 03-10-2018 06:15 PM

The website stated an intention and not a promise. I may intend to have enough money in the bank in 5 years time to take a cruise but that doesn't necessarily state that I will take that cruise. Things can happen and intentions change over time.

As time passed and Camilla grew into her role and has performed it wonderfully and is everything a consort should be with even HM, The Queen naming her to her Privy Council, its become more and more obvious that Camilla will make a wonderful Queen Consort when the time comes.

Camilla, back when that intention was made, could have gone the other way and preferred to stay out of the limelight at Ray Mill for the most part and not embrace the royal life and duties. After 13 years, I think both Charles and Camilla are pretty well situated in knowing that they will serve the country best as a team.

Remember too.... the road to hell is also paved with good intentions. ;)

Rudolph 03-10-2018 06:19 PM

All he needs to do now is never, ever bring up the topic again. Let the newspapers write about it. Allow polling companies to do polls but never use the term Princess Consort again.

Since under common law the succession is immediate, Camilla becomes Queen as soon as Charles is King.

Whether they decide to crown her or not doesn’t matter. The crowning doesn’t make a king or queen in this case.

MARG 03-10-2018 07:24 PM

The bottom line is that when HM QEII dies Charles immediately becomes King Charles and his wife Queen Camilla. That is the law. And while the media can clutch their pearls to their heart's content, it will take an Act of Parliament to change her title.

The only real option would be Princess Consort but, since she must hold the feminine of her husband's title, there isn't a prince among them. To be "Princess" Consort she would have to be made a Princess of the realm in her own right.

However, there seems little political taste for what is essentially a spiteful act of retribution for past sins and let's be honest here folks, we don't really know who did what to whom. We just have books and articles penned by people for or against one or the other and worse, embroidered for the extra cash. Does the reputation of the UK rest in the hands of the media or the government?

Most important of all is the United Kingdom itself and its standing in a post-Brexit world? The government has been dispatching members of the BRF all over the globe in what is irreverently called a "Charm Offensive". The government relies on the BRF to be literally the jewel in the crown which is why HM found herself lunching at BP and Prince Charles later dining at CH with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia this last week.

With the political and trade situation in a state of flux as it is withdrawing from the EEC, the UK government is not about to take time out to enact a law stripping the title "Queen Consort" from Charles wife whenever he takes the throne. The optics are lousy and quite frankly they have far more important things to occupy their collective minds. It would be the ultimate own goal if they did.

Iluvbertie 03-10-2018 07:55 PM

Quote:

King Edward VIII gave in to public opinion when he was told marrying Wallis was not an option (for the record, at the time, he actually suggested a "princess consort" solution, which was turned down). One could have argued that, if public opinion can force a king to abdicate, so it can also overthrow the monarchy. That has been the case, however, in England since 1649 at least, so there is nothing new really. The monarchy always depends on popular support to survive and that is why Charles should be wise to keep his promises.

It wasn't 'public opinion' that forced out Edward VIII but the government. By the time the public were given a chance to voice their opinion the decision had been made.

The public wanted him to stay, the government wanted him out and they had forced his hand - especially when they told him there was no such thing as a 'morganatic marriage' in the UK but that is now what the public and some posters on here want - a change in the UK and other realms laws to allow for a situation where the wife doesn't take all ranks, styles and titles from their husband (and it will take legislation - as was stated at the time by PM Blair).

The 'intention' may have come to fruition if the Queen had died within a couple of years but now, 13 years later with the Queen looking likely to live another decade or more is seems a bit ridiculous.

Tatiana Maria 03-10-2018 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Gudgeon (Post 2080459)
Gerry - the male consort can't be style king because king outranks queen and you can't have the spouse outranking the monarch. Hence my argument that it is more equitable for all spouses (regardless of gender of the monarch) to be prince/princess.

A male consort would not outrank the reigning queen, regardless of his title (unless he was a reigning king as well).

MARG 03-10-2018 08:21 PM

:previous: Worse, the very notion would be utterly repugnant. The death of HM Queen Elizabeth II is going to resonate around the world. There will be public mourning followed by a time of private mourning. I doubt the average citizen would stomach a move to strip the new Queen of her entitlement and I have no doubt the government would not even contemplate it.

Had such a decision been followed through following the marriage of Prince Charles, the Commonwealth would have been problematic and the international optics would have been equally ugly but I wonder, if it would it have been forced to be decided by a Referendum and would it have won even then?

I can imagine a situation wherein some countries referred to the King and Queen and others the King and Princess. The awkwardness of such an odd situation is exemplified by The Netherlands where the legislation enabling the future King's wife to be known as 'Queen Consort' rather than 'Princess Consort' was passed.

Mbruno 03-10-2018 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MARG (Post 2080540)
:previous: Worse, the very notion would be utterly repugnant. The death of HM Queen Elizabeth II is going to resonate around the world. There will be public mourning followed by a time of private mourning. I doubt the average citizen would stomach a move to strip the new Queen of her entitlement and I have no doubt the government would not even contemplate it.

Had such a decision been followed through following the marriage of Prince Charles, the Commonwealth would have been problematic and the international optics would have been equally ugly but I wonder, if it would it have been forced to be decided by a Referendum and would it have won even then?

I can imagine a situation wherein some countries referred to the King and Queen and others the King and Princess. The awkwardness of such an odd situation is exemplified by The Netherlands where the legislation enabling the future King's wife to be known as 'Queen Consort' rather than 'Princess Consort' was passed.

No legislation was passed in the Netherlands. Máxima is officially "Princess of the Netherlands" and "Princess of Orange-Nassau", but the Royal Court announced she was going to be referred to as "HM Queen Máxima" by courtesy.

The situation is analogous in the UK and Clarence House actually clarified it several times when the "intention" was still posted on the PoW's website. The only royal titles and styles that are regulated by an act of Parliament (and, therefore, cannot be changed unilaterally by the King or the reigning Queen) are the monarch's him/herself. In all other cases, it is a royal prerogative of the Sovereign alone to determine how the members of the Royal House are styled, and his/her will in that respect overrides any other legal instrument other than an act of Parliament, including the common law . That is why a simple public announcement by the Queen that Edward's children would not be HRHs was sufficient to style them as children of an earl instead, the 1917 LPs notwithstanding.

If, upon ascending the throne, King Charles III (or George VII) announced that his wife would be known as HRH The Princess Consort (a title he could give her by Letters Patent for example), that is how everybody in every country would refer to her, in the same way a simple announcement by the Dutch Royal Court was enough for Máxima to be called "queen". I don't see why some countries, as you claim, would use "the King and the Queen" whereas others would refer to "the King and the Princess Consort". That assumption doesn't make any sense really.

Fine, Charles can go ahead with "Queen Camilla" if he wants to, but he will do so at his own risk. To me, it is unwise and, again, it will only add up to the pressure on him to step down.

Gawin 03-10-2018 10:14 PM

That's exactly what the article linked below states. Only the Sovereign's title is regulated by Parliament. All other royal titles and styles - including the Sovereign's consort - are subject to the Sovereign's Royal Prerogative.

Will Camilla actually be Princess Consort? – Royal Central

I agree with Rudolph. This is a problem of Charles's own making.

Iluvbertie 03-10-2018 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mbruno (Post 2080556)
No legislation was passed in the Netherlands. Máxima is officially "Princess of the Netherlands" and "Princess of Orange-Nassau", but the Royal Court announced she was going to be referred to as "HM Queen Máxima" by courtesy.

The situation is analogous in the UK and Clarence House actually clarified it several times when the "intention" was still posted on the PoW's website. The only royal titles and styles that are regulated by an act of Parliament (and, therefore, cannot be changed unilaterally by the King or the reigning Queen) are the monarch's him/herself. In all other cases, it is a royal prerogative of the Sovereign alone to determine how the members of the Royal House are styled, and his/her will in that respect overrides any other legal instrument other than an act of Parliament, including the common law . That is why a simple public announcement by the Queen that Edward's children would not be HRHs was sufficient to style them as children of an earl instead, the 1917 LPs notwithstanding.

If, upon ascending the throne, King Charles III (or George VII) announced that his wife would be known as HRH The Princess Consort (a title he could give her by Letters Patent for example), that is how everybody in every country would refer to her, in the same way a simple announcement by the Dutch Royal Court was enough for Máxima to be called "queen". I don't see why some countries, as you claim, would use "the King and the Queen" whereas others would refer to "the King and the Princess Consort". That assumption doesn't make any sense really.

Fine, Charles can go ahead with "Queen Camilla" if he wants to, but he will do so at his own risk. To me, it is unwise and, again, it will only add up to the pressure on him to step down.

Tony Blair said in 2005 that it would take legislation for Camilla to be denied the 'common law' right in the UK of the title of Queen.

Common law is as much a law as is legislated law and in common law the wife always takes the styles and titles of her husband. This common law doesn't apply in other countries outside of those once settled by Britain and it has taken legislation in those countries to remove elements of it (if not already removed in the UK).

Other countries laws and practices don't apply in the UK - anymore than UK laws and practices apply in them.

Gawin 03-11-2018 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 2080581)
Tony Blair said in 2005 that it would take legislation for Camilla to be denied the 'common law' right in the UK of the title of Queen.

It's my understanding that Tony Blair's government said she would automatically become Queen - regardless of the title she preferred to use - unless legislation was passed. Clarence House responded by stating no legislation would be required.

So it seems the issue isn't really about "denying" her a common law right. It's whether or not she can choose to be styled something other than Queen - such as Princess Consort - without special legislation, just as she now chooses to be styled Duchess of Cornwall even though she's legally entitled to be called Princess of Wales.

Royal titles and styles are the prerogative of the Sovereign - not common law - which is why Wallis Simpson became the Duchess of Windsor and not HRH the Duchess of Windsor when she married HRH the Duke of Windsor. George VI refused to give her the HRH and his wish trumped common law.

One constitutional expert agrees with Clarence House: "Upon the death of the Queen, Charles automatically becomes King – that is it. His wife will become Queen Consort, formally established by precedent. But if she wishes to be known by another title, that’s a matter of royal prerogative, so the monarch could determine that another style will be employed.”

Queen Camilla: A likely future according to a constitutional expert – Royal Central

I personally believe Camilla should be styled Queen but apparently the final decision will be Charles's.

hel 03-11-2018 01:34 AM

Personally, I just wish that the newspapers would make it more clear that she will *be* Queen, but that it's a question of whether she will/won't/should/shouldn't be *styled* Queen.

Rudolph 03-11-2018 03:00 AM

But we know it’s the ghost of Diana past that started alll of this. What does Camilla have against being called Queen?

She’d still be the King’s wife. Why are they so darn set on her being called Princess Consort if not for Diana.

And to illustrate just how much Diana is still ‘with’ us, a poll was conducted in Britain for international women’s day and Diana was voted the fourth most admired women in Britain. One behind the Queen at third.

Now that’s it’s off the website its probably over and done with. Charles needs to say no more. If God forbid ERII died through the night we’d have TM King Charles III and Queen Camilla in the morning.

But if Charles continues down this road someone will have a word. No PM of the U.K. is going to play this charade and toss out hundreds of years of history to satisfy Charles eccentricities

wbenson 03-11-2018 04:55 AM

I think this issue has been badly bungled by Clarence House. Nobody ever really believed that the "intention" regarding her future title was held in good faith, so ever since there's been a constant drip of insinuations that she will be queen. Had they just dealt with this properly in 2005 by saying that yes, she'll be queen when her husband is king, the marriage may have been slightly more unpopular at the time, but whatever extra furor there would have been in 2005 would have died down long ago and it would now be a fait accompli. But because they went down this road, we're all talking about it once again, with no hope of any definitive resolution before the time comes.

And I think the polling is a little misleading. It's not good but I think Camilla's future title is largely irrelevant to the public's opinion of her. You see something similar when people are asked about conspiracy theories relating to politicians they oppose. Members of Party X will be asked if Politician Y is actually a lizard-person from space, and 80% of them will say yes, and people will wring their hands about how terrible it is that people believe this untrue thing, but most of them don't believe it; they're just choosing the option that casts someone they dislike in the worst light possible. So when people express a preference for "princess consort", I think there's a large cohort who are trying to say that she shouldn't be any kind of consort and choosing the most derogatory option possible in the poll. (Again, I don't think that makes the numbers better for her, just not especially relevant to this particular question.)

Madame Verseau 03-11-2018 05:04 AM

Common law, tradition or not Charles got himself into this pickle when the public statement was made that Camilla would be Princess Consort when he ascends to the throne. It would be seen that Charles misled the public for thirteen years, or worse, misled the queen to get the consent to marry (a consent that took eight years to come). There are stories out that Charles would need William and Harry's public support for Camilla to be addressed as Her Majesty. It's that bad.

andrew 03-11-2018 06:02 AM

.
 
If he didn't say anything regarding Camilla's title back in 2005 the media had have caused a storm with headlines like "Queen Camilla will reign after the Queen passes" or smth like that. So I guess Charles chose the lesser trouble by stating that the intention is for Princess Consort.
I find it odd that in Britain everything should be decided by the tabloid media.
If Diana would be still alive I could understand a move like using the Princess Consort title-maybe. But Diana died 21 years ago she was never Queen of Britain so just forget about the Princess Consort title and follow the law that gives the king's wife the title of queen! Or change the law and say that the wife of the king will be known as Mrs King or Kingess or Princess Consort or whatever....

Mbruno 03-11-2018 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrew (Post 2080616)
If he didn't say anything regarding Camilla's title back in 2005 the media had have caused a storm with headlines like "Queen Camilla will reign after the Queen passes" or smth like that. So I guess Charles chose the lesser trouble by stating that the intention is for Princess Consort.

It is not that simple. As Madame Verseau said, it was implicit at the time that calling Camilla the Duchess of Cornwall and the Princess Consort was a necessary condition for her wedding to Charles to be acceptable. By agreeing to those conditions back then and backtracking now, Charles will inevitably be accused of being deceitful, which is not good for a future king.

BTW, according to the Express article, Clarence House is saying that the question about Camilla's future title was removed from the FAQ list on the PoW's website simply because that question "is not frequently asked" anymore, which seems like further deception and only makes things worse. No explanation was given AFAIK to justify why the reference to the Princess Consort title was also deleted from Camilla's biography page.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madame Verseau (Post 2080610)
. There are stories out that Charles would need William and Harry's public support for Camilla to be addressed as Her Majesty. It's that bad.

I saw those stories too on the internet yesterday, but, honestly, what would William and Harry do ? Make a public statement that they don't agree with Camilla being called queen ? Realistically, they would not publicly challenge their father's will. In the end, Camilla's title is not a matter to be decided by an act of Parliament, or a referendum, or the courts. The decision lies solely with Charles as king, unless of course his prime minister and government officially advise him against it. I could see a PM like Tony Blair doing just that, but others like David Cameron, or now Theresa May, are far more deferential to the monarch.

Juliette2 03-13-2018 10:23 PM

My opinion has always been neutral toward Camilla but I have begun to appreciate her more and more lately. While I recognize some of the issues involved, I really feel that she should become Queen once Prince Charles ascends the throne. My only sadness is that I've always cherished the idea of a "Queen Mother" and in this case that certainly won't happen...it could be awkward after Charles' passing (assuming he passes before his wife).
In any case, I think she has done a wonderful job. I like the causes she has embraced and her family, too has behaved with remarkable dignity in a very difficult situation. I hope Prince Harry and Prince William will come to regard her as the wonderful companion she is to their father. Sometimes, I feel that there's still a lot of tension. Partly understandable.

Missjersey 03-13-2018 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juliette2 (Post 2081607)
My opinion has always been neutral toward Camilla but I have begun to appreciate her more and more lately. While I recognize some of the issues involved, I really feel that she should become Queen once Prince Charles ascends the throne. My only sadness is that I've always cherished the idea of a "Queen Mother" and in this case that certainly won't happen...it could be awkward after Charles' passing (assuming he passes before his wife).
In any case, I think she has done a wonderful job. I like the causes she has embraced and her family, too has behaved with remarkable dignity in a very difficult situation. I hope Prince Harry and Prince William will come to regard her as the wonderful companion she is to their father. Sometimes I very much feel that there's a lot of tension. Partly understandable.

Yes, Juliette2, I also want to see Camilla as Queen. For me she is his North Star. I too always feel there is an underlying tension with Prince William and Prince Harry that they can’t let go (that’s JMO, no matter how many pictures I see of them all together).

Osipi 03-13-2018 11:18 PM

The thing is with me is that I think, just as in their everyday royal lives, there's a distinction between their public and private lives. In their public roles, Charles is the heir to the throne and Camilla is his wife. What happened, is happening or what will happen in their private lives, to me, has no bearing on whether or not Camilla will be Queen.

Juliette brought up the title of "Queen Mother". Even if Diana had lived and had a happy marriage with Charles and was alive at the time William became King, I do not expect that she would ever be called The Queen Mother but rather remain as HM, Queen Diana. The only reason that there was a Queen Mother is because both women were Queens and both had the same first name. Queen Mary was never "Queen Mother" when her son, George VI ascended the throne.

Juliette2 03-14-2018 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 2081617)
The thing is with me is that I think, just as in their everyday royal lives, there's a distinction between their public and private lives. In their public roles, Charles is the heir to the throne and Camilla is his wife. What happened, is happening or what will happen in their private lives, to me, has no bearing on whether or not Camilla will be Queen.

Juliette brought up the title of "Queen Mother". Even if Diana had lived and had a happy marriage with Charles and was alive at the time William became King, I do not expect that she would ever be called The Queen Mother but rather remain as HM, Queen Diana. The only reason that there was a Queen Mother is because both women were Queens and both had the same first name. Queen Mary was never "Queen Mother" when her son, George VI ascended the throne.

Yes, Osipi, I completely agree with you in making the distinction between public and private life.

You also rightly reminded me of where the "Queen Mother" "title" came from. I honestly forgot about that! That makes me feel better! :flowers:

Prince Charles and Camilla seem a genuinely happy couple and as Missjersey said she has a great effect on him. They really do support each other. I guess they were always meant to be. I'm sorry for the children and the spouses involved. Divorces are never desirable nor easy.

Ish 03-15-2018 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 2081617)

Juliette brought up the title of "Queen Mother". Even if Diana had lived and had a happy marriage with Charles and was alive at the time William became King, I do not expect that she would ever be called The Queen Mother but rather remain as HM, Queen Diana. The only reason that there was a Queen Mother is because both women were Queens and both had the same first name. Queen Mary was never "Queen Mother" when her son, George VI ascended the throne.

Queen Mary actually was a Queen Mother (as was Queen Alexandra before her), she just didn't use the title.

Properly, a Queen Mother is a Dowager Queen who is the mother of the reigning monarch; Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother is the only queen to use the title in recent history, partially because she and her daughter shared a name so it helped distinguish them, and partially because when QEII's reign started there were three British Queens - QEII, QEQM, and Queen Mary.

Previously, it had been used by Henrietta Maria, widow of Charles I and mother to Charles II and James II.

Lady Nimue 03-15-2018 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terri Terri (Post 2080328)
I was an avid Princess Diana fan but goodness...the woman has been dead for more than 20 years! I have recently started to warm up to Charles and Camilla, especially with their support of Harry and Meghan. It's time that this nonsense ends...Camilla should be called the Princess of Wales and be the future Queen. end of story.

I agree. :flowers: Though I do feel that Camilla avoiding being called the Princess of Wales was just being practical (and considerate). Camilla very much has her own identity as the Duchess of Cornwall, whereas were she to have used the moniker Princess of Wales there would have been a continual haze through which she would have been seen (and judged). It made sense to avoid the other imo.

Which brings up the tabloid press who continually stir the pot of Diana. It is endless. I notice it in nearly every news story regarding Meghan, for example. It's pretty heavy handed, and very often a continual negative spin is given regarding Charles. Does no one tire of it? Unsavory imo. I wonder that people do not see how much they are being 'played' with all that, but that's what makes the tabloids successful. Sigh'

Osipi 03-15-2018 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Nimue (Post 2081972)
Which brings up the tabloid press who continually stir the pot of Diana. It is endless. I notice it in nearly every news story regarding Meghan, for example. It's pretty heavy handed, and very often a continual negative spin is given regarding Charles. Does no one tire of it? Unsavory imo. I wonder that people do not see how much they are being 'played' with all that, but that's what makes the tabloids successful. Sigh'

Personally, I have to admit that I don't see it at all. That's because I refuse to read tabloids. I won't, for the most part, click on tabloid links posted here although I'll admit that the Daily Mail has excellent photographs. :biggrin:

Also, thanks Ish for providing even more detail into the Queen Mother title. This is the stuff I find fascinating. Who needs tabloids when one can actually learn something factual and relevant to the BRF?

Lady Nimue 03-15-2018 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 2081973)
Personally, I have to admit that I don't see it at all. That's because I refuse to read tabloids. I won't, for the most part, click on tabloid links posted here although I'll admit that the Daily Mail has excellent photographs. :biggrin:

Actually, I don't read tabloids either. :flowers: Just a shorthand way of saying it. I am very often not on TRF but I do like to keep abreast of things so usually click on the Yahoo stories, or such, that come up in my newsfeed. The result is I see a broad range of stories emanating from a variety of outlets (though I'm guessing they are using one or two sources to work from, like the DM, just a hunch). It's there I see the endless re-hash of Diana stuff. It's pretty consistent (and constant).

Osipi 03-15-2018 01:10 AM

I see those too when I peruse through the stories on my AOL news feed. There isn't a day that goes by without 4-5 stories about the BRF usually with titles like "William can't do this with George until he's 12" and "Dark Secrets from Prince Philip's past" and "Diana had to eat this everyday". I don't click on them and read them but I think a lot of Americans do and base their knowledge of the British monarchy on them. Its kind of sad. No wonder Charles, at one time, referred to the British royal family being turned into "a bloody soap opera".

All of this kind of thing will definitely go berserk and over the top when it comes time for Charles' coronation.

Lady Nimue 03-15-2018 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 2081979)
I see those too when I peruse through the stories on my AOL news feed. There isn't a day that goes by without 4-5 stories about the BRF usually with titles like "William can't do this with George until he's 12" and "Dark Secrets from Prince Philip's past" and "Diana had to eat this everyday". I don't click on them and read them but I think a lot of Americans do and base their knowledge of the British monarchy on them. Its kind of sad. No wonder Charles, at one time, referred to the British royal family being turned into "a bloody soap opera".

All of this kind of thing will definitely go berserk and over the top when it comes time for Charles' coronation.

So that is good for you, Osipi. :flowers: But I'm not sure why you chose to challenge me regarding my comment and now present as being above clicking on stories in your newsfeed. Is this necessary? Or relevant? :huh: What does it have to do with anything?

Fact is, stories often have Diana-stuff inserted. If you don't see it does not mean it's not there, but more pertinent, of course you wouldn't see it because you don't click on stories. I think we have that sorted. Can we move on? :huh:

Osipi 03-15-2018 01:33 AM

:previous: Actually, I was agreeing with you and just adding onto what you stated. If it came across as me challenging you, I sincerely apologize. :flowers:

Lady Nimue 03-15-2018 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 2081982)
Actually, I was agreeing with you and just adding onto what you stated. If it came across as me challenging you, I sincerely apologize. :flowers:

Okay. Sorry if I was being too sensitive. :sad: It felt like I was laboring to be understood on what seemed to me a pretty straight forward observation. Plus it was literally my first post after being gone from TRF for while. :ermm: Thank you for the kind acknowledgement. We can move on, I think. :heart: :flowers:

Osipi 03-15-2018 01:42 AM

Glad to see you back as I've missed your posts. :biggrin:

Lady Nimue 03-15-2018 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 2081989)
Glad to see you back as I've missed your posts. :biggrin:

Thank you, Osipi. :flowers: Always nice to be back on though I have to make sure I have a chunk of free time when I come back on. The scale of posting that confronts one when one has been absent is daunting. I'm long past trying to read everything to catch up anymore, but I do like to get the drift. ;)

Mbruno 03-19-2018 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdmirerUS (Post 2031102)
We will know where they go to school. And I don't entirely agree that E and S are seeking "normal." The kids are privileged and I don't think the family minds that.

Are you saying Edward and Sophie want their children to have all the perks without any of the obligations of being a member of the Royal House ?

That is wrong IMHO. James and Louise should be HRHs as determined by King George V's Letters Patent.

Osipi 03-19-2018 07:53 AM

Anne's children would be an example that the Wessex children would be following albeit that the Wessex children are styled as children as an Earl (and eventually children of a Duke) while Anne's children have no title at all. All four children are grandchildren of a monarch.

As I see it, the will and pleasure of Queen Elizabeth II, as monarch, can and does override the letters patent of George V. :biggrin:

Iluvbertie 03-19-2018 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mbruno (Post 2083471)
Are you saying Edward and Sophie want their children to have all the perks without any of the obligations of being a member of the Royal House ?

That is wrong IMHO. James and Louise should be HRHs as determined by King George V's Letters Patent.

The Queen however changed that by issuing the statement that they wouldn't have those titles and The Queen's Will is all that is needed to change titles. They do not need LPs.

Why would she do that?

Presumably because she is foreshadowing the time when only the children of the heir apparent will be HRH and not the children of the younger children but she didn't want to strip her cousins of their titles and this way that didn't happen.

I will be very surprised if she now issues LPs giving HRH to Harry's children so they won't be born with the HRH and then when Charles becomes King he will simply confirm that they aren't HRHs.

As things currently stand Charlotte's children won't be HRH and if the new baby is a girl that would be two of three of William's children without that right making it easier to thus issue the LPs.

The York girls aren't wanted or needed on the working royal roster so why would Edward's children who are even further from the throne?

The intention of a smaller royal family is coming about slowing (although William having three children will make it larger in his time).

Mbruno 03-19-2018 08:55 AM

George V followed the (pre-Revolution) French standard under which the Royal House consisted of:


1. The King and the Queen Consort.
2. The monarch's legitimate children.
3. The monarch's legitimate grandchildren in male line.
4. The legitimate children of the eldest son of the heir to the throne.
5. The Queen Dowager when applicable.

In addition, wives of royal princes were also members of the Royal House by marriage whereas husbands of royal princesses were not.

With the introduction of equal primogeniture, the list above could be modernized to include all legitimate grandchildren of the monarch (in both paternal and maternal line) and all royal consorts and widows/widowers, either male or female, which is close to the Belgian system now (with the exception that, in Belgium, all grandchildren of the heir are also members of the Royal House).

I don't see a need for a minimalist Royal House, as in Spain or Norway today for example, as long as public funding is limited to the monarch, the monarch's consort, and the heir (and his/her consort), while other members of the Royal House get reimbursed only for official duties they perform. There could be public funding also for the dowager or former monarch upon abdication, which is fair.

Pranter 03-19-2018 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 2083482)
The Queen however changed that by issuing the statement that they wouldn't have those titles and The Queen's Will is all that is needed to change titles. They do not need LPs.

Why would she do that?

Presumably because she is foreshadowing the time when only the children of the heir apparent will be HRH and not the children of the younger children but she didn't want to strip her cousins of their titles and this way that didn't happen.

I will be very surprised if she now issues LPs giving HRH to Harry's children so they won't be born with the HRH and then when Charles becomes King he will simply confirm that they aren't HRHs.

As things currently stand Charlotte's children won't be HRH and if the new baby is a girl that would be two of three of William's children without that right making it easier to thus issue the LPs.

The York girls aren't wanted or needed on the working royal roster so why would Edward's children who are even further from the throne?

The intention of a smaller royal family is coming about slowing (although William having three children will make it larger in his time).


Really...see I expect Harry's kids to be HRH either issued so by the Queen or when Charles is monarch.

Interesting.


LaRae

Somebody 03-19-2018 11:13 AM

:previous: Why would the queen issue LPs to give her greatgrandchildren a title she actively withheld from her grandchildren?

Lumutqueen 03-19-2018 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Somebody (Post 2083506)
:previous: Why would the queen issue LPs to give her greatgrandchildren a title she actively withheld from her grandchildren?



I disagree that she “actively withheld”, I strongly believe that the decision was Edward and Sophie’s and The Queen agreed.

Unless you mean something else.

Osipi 03-19-2018 12:02 PM

I agree. Anne's children do not have a title at all because their father declined a title. Sophie and Edward requested that their children be styled as children of an Earl (until Edward is created The Duke of Edinburgh when the title becomes available).

Rosena6 03-19-2018 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 2083480)
Anne's children would be an example that the Wessex children would be following albeit that the Wessex children are styled as children as an Earl (and eventually children of a Duke) while Anne's children have no title at all. All four children are grandchildren of a monarch.

As I see it, the will and pleasure of Queen Elizabeth II, as monarch, can and does override the letters patent of George V. :biggrin:

Princess Margaret's kids have titles but live fairly private lives.

Rosena6 03-19-2018 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 2083518)
I agree. Anne's children do not have a title at all because their father declined a title. Sophie and Edward requested that their children be styled as children of an Earl (until Edward is created The Duke of Edinburgh when the title becomes available).

What would have been different had they been HRH Prince and Princess?
They wouldn't be working royals either way I think?

Molly2101 03-19-2018 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosena6 (Post 2083571)
What would have been different had they been HRH Prince and Princess?
They wouldn't be working royals either way I think?

Well one thing they won’t have to endure now as they aren’t Princess Louise and Prince James is the issue that people have with Beatrice and Eugenie at present. Thy have HRH styles and people are questioning the need for them. They were never going to be working royals but are now stuck inbetween a rock and a hard place.

Louise and James are free to get jobs without the public essentially thinking, “what’s the point of them?” They haven’t got any of the burdens of being seen to be useful like their York cousins. The Princesses have patronage’s and attend certain events, most likely at the invitation of their grandmother. I can’t see Charles requesting his youngest niece and nephew attend a reception at BP when he is King.

Edward and Sophie saw the future for their children and knew that they would have no royal engagements. They wanted their children to lead private lives (or as private as they can be when their relatives are the Monarch.)

Osipi 03-19-2018 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosena6 (Post 2083571)
What would have been different had they been HRH Prince and Princess?
They wouldn't be working royals either way I think?

You're right. Princess Margaret's children are another example of being in the royal family and having relatively private lives.

I think one of the disadvantages we see right now with Beatrice and Eugenie being HRH and princesses is that, for the most part, people don't realize that these two women are private citizens that happen to be granddaughters of the monarch and not working for the BRF's "Firm".

Perhaps with being styled as Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor, there won't be so much expectations put on her to be "royal" and it makes it easier for her to have a private life.

Pranter 03-19-2018 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Somebody (Post 2083506)
:previous: Why would the queen issue LPs to give her greatgrandchildren a title she actively withheld from her grandchildren?

Because their parents rejected titles for them. The Queen didn't 'withhold them' so they couldn't have them.


LaRae

Iluvbertie 03-19-2018 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mbruno (Post 2083490)
George V followed the (pre-Revolution) French standard under which the Royal House consisted of:


1. The King and the Queen Consort.
2. The monarch's legitimate children.
3. The monarch's legitimate grandchildren in male line.
4. The legitimate children of the eldest son of the heir to the throne.
5. The Queen Dowager when applicable.

In addition, wives of royal princes were also members of the Royal House by marriage whereas husbands of royal princesses were not.

With the introduction of equal primogeniture, the list above could be modernized to include all legitimate grandchildren of the monarch (in both paternal and maternal line) and all royal consorts and widows/widowers, either male or female, which is close to the Belgian system now (with the exception that, in Belgium, all grandchildren of the heir are also members of the Royal House).

I doubt that they will go to a broader number of royals. They are trying to reduce the number so they will be reducing who is royal to the children of the monarch and the children of the heir apparent.

The public don't want Beatrice and Eugenie as royals so there is no way they will want to see that number expanded again (last time I was in Britain I asked numerous people their thoughts on the York girls and no one had a good word to say about them).

Quote:

I don't see a need for a minimalist Royal House, as in Spain or Norway today for example, as long as public funding is limited to the monarch, the monarch's consort, and the heir (and his/her consort), while other members of the Royal House get reimbursed only for official duties they perform. There could be public funding also for the dowager or former monarch upon abdication, which is fair.
You are advocating expanding the amount of money spent by the taxpayers on the royals. Other than the Queen and Philip the rest are funded from the private incomes of the Duchies for their official duties not from the Sovereign Grant.

There won't be an abdication in the UK - unless William decides to do so, which I can see him doing - but neither the Queen nor Charles will ever abdicate. They believe they are there for life. If they do decide to abdicate they should get nothing as they have given up their duty and no moneys at all should be paid for that.

The spouse of the previous monarch is covered in the Sovereign Grant now so no increase there.

The streamlining of the royal family is clear for anyone to see if they look at the way the York girls are sidelined and so the family is going to have fewer workers doing fewer engagements - in line with the reported, but never confirmed, ideas that Charles wants a smaller royal family. The fact that that has been repeated over and over again makes it virtually impossible now for anyone to go back.

We have already seen The Queen change the LPs with Edward's children by the use of Her Will which would suggest a future where they LPs themselves will be changed to reduce rather than expand the number of HRHs as you are suggesting.

If all the grandchildren of a monarch were HRHs then by Christmas this year there would be 36 HRHs compared to the 21 we will have. That number would also only increase as Harry has children. The intention though is to reduce that number not add to it.

I would even go so far as to say that HRH should be limited to the first 6 in the line of succession - regardless of relation to the monarch and so people would lose it as others were born - as they do the need to ask permission to marry.

cepe 03-19-2018 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by camelot23ca (Post 2031125)
Edward and Sophie saw their children had the opportunity for private lives and gave it to them, which was a very wise decision, I think. Louise and James will still have all the unofficial privileges associated with being the grandchildren of a monarch - first rate educations, social and family connections, the opportunity to pursue their careers of choice, a nice, although probably not exorbitant sum of money set aside for them in trusts - without the constant attention and expectations that fall on working royals.

These are the privileges that come with any child of someone with money eg
-Branson children
-family of the late Duke of Westminster (although educated at the local comprehensive school)
-children of celebrities

the difference is that their parents will still be receiving public money (albeit not as a salary) and therefore will stay in the public eye. Don't see the DM losing sight of these two.

Since the revived interest in royalty (via social media, blogs and forums) media chase the younger children now. Although the children of (say) Duke of Kent missed it, there is now focus on the grandchildren, especially the girls.

Pranter 03-19-2018 08:55 PM

Bertie I don't think you can compare the York girls to the Wales boys. Their popularity has always been very different.


LaRae

O-H Anglophile 03-19-2018 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 2083732)

The public don't want Beatrice and Eugenie as royals so there is no way they will want to see that number expanded again (last time I was in Britain I asked numerous people their thoughts on the York girls and no one had a good word to say about them).

If all the grandchildren of a monarch were HRHs then by Christmas this year there would be 35 HRHs compared to the 23 we will have. That number would also only increase as Harry has children. The intention though is to reduce that number not add to it.

I would even go so far as to say that HRH should be limited to the first 6 in the line of succession - regardless of relation to the monarch and so people would lose it as others were born - as they do the need to ask permission to marry.

1) I think more people are indifferent to Beatrice and Eugenie than actively are negative. Many of those that are negative towards the girls either dislike their mother and/or father or believe they get money for doing nothing.

2) How so? The Queen has only eight grandchildren.

3) So are you advocating stripping the HRH from those that fall below the 6the position in the successsion even if they'd had it all their life previously?

RoyalHighness 2002 03-19-2018 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile (Post 2083742)

2) How so? The Queen has only eight grandchildren.

If I am assuming and counting right, I think she is including all of the living grandchildren and spouses of a monarch,:

HRH Meghan
HRH Prince Peter
HRH Autumn
HRH Princess Zara
HRH Princess Louise
HRH Prince James
HRH Prince David
HRH The Countess of Snowdon
HRH Princess Sarah
HRH The Dowager Countess of Harewood
HRH Prince/ss xyz of Cambridge

I guess I am missing one

Countessmeout 03-19-2018 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosena6 (Post 2083458)
Do their kids attend boarding school?
I read that only Beatrice attended a day school, unlike her cousins. Is that true?
I thought her sister was a day scholar, too?

To get back to education and not the title discussion, to answer you.....

All of the cousins went to day school at one point, but most went to boarding.

Both Beatrice and Eugenie attended St George's, but different locations. Due to her dyslexia, Beatrice went to the Ascot location. She remained there as a day student until she finished her a levels. Eugenie went to Windsor location, but later spent five years as a boarder at Marlborough. Because of her learning disability, it was decided better for Beatrice to remain with her teachers at a school that had top programs for kids with dyslexia.

Louise and James attended, James still, St George's Windsor like Eugenie. But the school is only until 13. There is no word of where Louise now goes.

Iluvbertie 03-19-2018 09:45 PM

Existing HRHs

1. HRH The Duke of Edinburgh
2. HRH The Prince of Wales
3. HRH The Duchess of Cornwall
4. HRH The Duke of Cambridge
5. HRH The Duchess of Cambridge
6. HRH Prince George of Cambridge
7. HRH Princess Charlotte of Cambridge
8. HRH Prince Henry of Wales
9. HRH The Duke of York
10. HRH Princess Beatrice of York
11. HRH Princess Eugenie of York
12. HRH The Earl of Wessex
13. HRH The Countess of Wessex
14. HRH The Princess Royal
15. HRH The Duke of Gloucester
16. HRH The Duchess of Gloucester
17. HRH The Duke of Kent
18. HRH The Duchess of Kent
19. HRH Prince Michael of Kent
20. HRH Princess Michael of Kent
21. HRH Princess Alexandra

If ALL children, grandchildren of a monarch AND their non-divorced spouses were HRH the list by Christmas would be:

1. HRH The Duke of Edinburgh
2. HRH The Prince of Wales
3. HRH The Duchess of Cornwall
4. HRH The Duke of Cambridge
5. HRH The Duchess of Cambridge
6. HRH Prince George of Cambridge
7. HRH Princess Charlotte of Cambridge
8. HRH Baby Cambridge
9. HRH Prince Henry of Wales
10. HRH Princess Henry of Wales
11. HRH The Duke of York
12. HRH Princess Beatrice of York
13. HRH Princess Eugenie of York
14. HRH Prince Jack Brookshank
15. HRH The Earl of Wessex
16. HRH The Countess of Wessex
17. HRH Prince James of Wessex
18. HRH Princess Louise of Wessex

19. HRH The Princess Royal
20. HRH Prince Timothy Laurence
21. HRH Prince Peter
22. HRH Princess Peter
23. HRH Princess Zara
24. HRH Prince Michael Tindall
25. HRH The Earl of Snowdon
26. HRH The Countess of Snowdon
27. HRH Princess Sarah
28. HRH Prince Daniel Chatto

29. HRH The Duke of Gloucester
30. HRH The Duchess of Gloucester
31. HRH The Duke of Kent
32. HRH The Duchess of Kent
33. HRH Prince Michael of Kent
34. HRH Princess Michael of Kent
35. HRH Princess Alexandra
36. HRH The Dowager Countess of Harewood

Red is for those who would be added who aren't already HRH but are in the extended family while the blue will be HRH but aren't yet.

Pranter 03-19-2018 09:59 PM

But Bertie that's not going to happen (all the red)....at the most it would be children of Harry ..nothing (new) below that.


LaRae

Iluvbertie 03-19-2018 10:19 PM

I am fully aware of that. My point was in reply to a suggestion made by Mbruno that all grandchildren and their spouses should be HRHs due to the changes in the succession.

jacqui24 04-22-2018 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 2083732)
We have already seen The Queen change the LPs with Edward's children by the use of Her Will which would suggest a future where they LPs themselves will be changed to reduce rather than expand the number of HRHs as you are suggesting.

But the fact that HM used Her Will rather than issuing a new LP like she did for Charlotte tells me that she wants to leave the option open for future generations to decide. And perhaps she has some reservations about this. She had four children, and they all had children. By the time Louise and James were born, they were so far from the throne and also the Wales boys were at an age where they provided a lot of tabloid fodder that it wasn't as big of a deal.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the current LP will be changed to expand to include additional HRHs, but I don't see a reduction either to the level that you suggested earlier. I don't think I'll see the children of a monarch be stripped of their HRH status. I don't really see a new LP issued during the York princesses' lives either. The most it'll be is probably through a sovereign's will, but that's probably it. I don't see Charles or William issuing a LP that would strip them of the HRH title or making an exception for them while issuing LP that would strip their own grandchildren of the title automatically. They would likely leave the choice to the parents and then issue His Will to address it.

royal-blue 05-20-2018 09:13 AM

Is Prince Andrew now undoubtedly a minor royal? With the expansion of Charles's family, the Yorks are well and truly out of the limelight.

AdmirerUS 05-20-2018 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by royal-blue (Post 2112672)
Is Prince Andrew now undoubtedly a minor royal? With the expansion of Charles's family, the Yorks are well and truly out of the limelight.

I'm going to give a creepy if practical answer. He's not so far out of it when you think of Charles/Wills/Harry family being together (as I am sure there are times they are) and the gas main blows or something else equally catastrophic happens. He is suddenly very relevant, again in that case.

Kronprinz 05-20-2018 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by royal-blue (Post 2112672)
Is Prince Andrew now undoubtedly a minor royal? With the expansion of Charles's family, the Yorks are well and truly out of the limelight.

As long as he's the son of the current monarch, I don't think he can be truly considered a minor royal. That will happen when he becomes the brother of the monarch who himself has plenty of heirs. Then he'll just be a spare in the background.

Mbruno 05-21-2018 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 2083759)
I am fully aware of that. My point was in reply to a suggestion made by Mbruno that all grandchildren and their spouses should be HRHs due to the changes in the succession.


No, the change would apply only to the descendants of Prince Charles when he were King. It would not be retroactive to all descendants of George V or George VI.


Also, I am proposing the Belgian model that applies only to people born as children and grandchildren of a living monarch.


All people who were already HRHs prior to the change in the titles systems obviously would keep their styles while they are alive, again as the 2015 Belgian royal decree did to people who were princes/princess of Belgium under the royal decrees of 1891 and 1991.



I imagined that would be obvious to other posters, but, apparently, it was not. If the concern is, however, an increase in the number of HRHs because of the inclusion of maternal grandchildren, then the Dutch model may be used and only the children of the heir would become HRHs. The important point is to eliminate gender inequality to keep the title rules in line with the succession rules, i.e. either all grandchildren (in paternal and maternal line) are HRHs, or only the children of the heir are (whether the heir is male or female).

Jacknch 05-21-2018 02:39 PM

Off-topic posts relating to Prince Andrew have been deleted - clearly not a topic for this thread.

Vizier 05-21-2018 09:57 PM

Do people think it matters who is on the throne when Harry and Meghan have their kid(s), as far as the title goes? Prince/Princess and would Charles be as likely as his mother let them have this or would he change the Letters of Patent? Of course it seems quite possible that, like the Wessex family, they won't want this for their children.

Ish 05-22-2018 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vizier (Post 2113878)
Do people think it matters who is on the throne when Harry and Meghan have their kid(s), as far as the title goes? Prince/Princess and would Charles be as likely as his mother let them have this or would he change the Letters of Patent? Of course it seems quite possible that, like the Wessex family, they won't want this for their children.

Yes, it does matter who is on the throne when Harry and Meghan have children. Under the current LPs, any children born during the Queen's reign will be styled as the children of a Duke, not as HRH Prince/Princess.

It is possible that the Queen might modify the LPs, but that's no guarantee. It's equally as possible that Charles might modify the LPs or issue a statement during his reign that would prevent any children of Harry and Meghan from being HRH Prince/Princess, comparable to Edward and Sophie.

We really won't know until if/when Harry and Meghan have children.

jacqui24 05-22-2018 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ish (Post 2113949)
Yes, it does matter who is on the throne when Harry and Meghan have children. Under the current LPs, any children born during the Queen's reign will be styled as the children of a Duke, not as HRH Prince/Princess.

It is possible that the Queen might modify the LPs, but that's no guarantee. It's equally as possible that Charles might modify the LPs or issue a statement during his reign that would prevent any children of Harry and Meghan from being HRH Prince/Princess, comparable to Edward and Sophie.

We really won't know until if/when Harry and Meghan have children.

Yea, I really think whether or not exceptions are made for the children either way would take into account of the parents’ opinion. And knowing those two, I don’t see their children being addressed as HRHs. While I’m sure the Queen and Charles don’t mind all of his grandchildren to have HRH status, Edward has already set a precedent for this. Not much doubt in my mind that Harry would follow.

Jacknch 05-22-2018 03:05 PM

A new thread - https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...chy-44877.html - has been created to discuss the future of the British monarchy including the subject of what the monarchy may be like when Charles comes to the throne and beyond.

Accordingly, this thread is now closed.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:19 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises