The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f44/)
-   -   General News and Information for The Duchess of Cornwall (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f44/general-news-and-information-for-the-duchess-of-cornwall-36308.html)

VictoriaB 01-13-2014 03:10 PM

General News and Information for The Duchess of Cornwall
 
Not sure where to put this as I'm not sure the original thread is appropriate so moderator's please move as you see fit.

In the Duchess of Cambridge thread it was mentioned that the bells of Westminster Abbey were rung to celebrate her birthday but the Duchess of Cornwall's birthday was not similarly celebrated.

I e-mailed the Abbey to see if this was a typographical error and received the following response:

Dear Ms
We are, in fact in the process of reviewing our ringing days and we will shall ring to mark the birthday of HRH The Duchess of Cornwall.
Duncan Jeffery
Head of Communications
Westminster Abbey

Dman 01-13-2014 03:29 PM

Very nice to know and it's good that they will include the Duchess of Cornwall's birthday.

Ish 01-13-2014 03:31 PM

Nice! Thanks for doing that, and it's good to see they're addressing it.

scooter 01-13-2014 06:34 PM

I can imagine why they are. The only ones they ring for now are those either directly in the succession or those who are a parent of one in the succession. I sense the hand of Charles here....

cepe 01-13-2014 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scooter (Post 1633017)
I can imagine why they are. The only ones they ring for now are those either directly in the succession or those who are a parent of one in the succession. I sense the hand of Charles here....

and why not? She's his wife, he is loyal and she is going to be his Queen.

Ish 01-13-2014 06:47 PM

According to the list posted in Catherine's thread they ring the bell for the monarch and her spouse, their children, and the direct line of succession (I can't remember if George is included, but William is).

Catherine's inclusion can be for one of two reasons - she provided genetic material to someone in the direct line, or she's married to someone in the direct line. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if it's a combination of the two.

Camilla's previous exclusion ignores the fact that she is married to the heir to the throne and has been for almost nine years now. She is going to be the next monarch's consort, and deserves to be recognized as such, even if she didn't contribute genetic material to the next generation.

Camilla won't be the first consort to not give birth to the monarch's heir apparent. There's no reason to deny her something granted to the DoE and Catherine simply on those grounds.

VictoriaB 01-13-2014 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scooter (Post 1633017)
I can imagine why they are. The only ones they ring for now are those either directly in the succession or those who are a parent of one in the succession. I sense the hand of Charles here....

What an odd statement. Why wouldn't they ring bells for Camilla if they do for Catherine? Camilla is the next Queen Consort not Catherine no matter what she is called.

It doesn't take Charles or anyone else to get involved just realisation by the Abbey's staff that this is what is appropriate.

Ish 01-13-2014 06:57 PM

Camilla is the next Queen Consort, not Queen Regent (although there is a huge debate on whether she'll be Queen Consort or Princess Consort that doesn't need to be delved into in this thread).

VictoriaB 01-13-2014 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ish (Post 1633028)
Camilla is the next Queen Consort, not Queen Regent (although there is a huge debate on whether she'll be Queen Consort or Princess Consort that doesn't need to be delved into in this thread).

Sorry, of course I know that. It was a typo on my part and has been fixed up.

Royal_Royal 01-13-2014 07:47 PM

That's only right. The Duchess of Cornwall is a great asset to the Royal Family, and she deserves all recognition.

No matter what, she'll be the consort of the next Monarch, people liking it or not. The Duchess of Cambridge has gave birth to the future King, yes, but the Duchess of Cornwall is years ahead of her (step-)daughter-in-law in terms of service to the country and the Commonwealth.

Baroness of Books 01-13-2014 08:29 PM

VictoriaB, well done that you contacted the Abbey and I'm glad that they got back to you with that answer. I don't think there should be any question that Camilla, as wife of the next monarch, should be included in the birthday salute.

Dman 01-13-2014 08:55 PM

It's possible that the Abbey's officials missed Camilla's birthday by mistake. I'm sure they already know her status and importance within the Monarchy but probably missed adding her birthday in the ringing schedule.

The Duchesses of Cornwall & Cambridge are second and third ladies of the land and I think it's important that they are honored appropriately.

cepe 01-13-2014 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dman (Post 1633049)
It's possible that the Abbey's officials missed Camilla's birthday by mistake. I'm sure they already know her status and importance within the Monarchy but probably missed adding her birthday in the ringing schedule.

The Duchesses of Cornwall & Cambridge are second and third ladies of the land and I think it's important that they are honored appropriately.

If you read the first post, you will see that VictoriaB wrote to see if there was a typographical error and the response indicates that there wasn't.

Dman 01-13-2014 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cepe (Post 1633054)
If you read the first post, you will see that VictoriaB wrote to see if there was a typographical error and the response indicates that there wasn't.

Well, I think it's a shame that they didn't add Camilla's birthday in the bell ringing schedule in the first place. The officials must've overlooked something in the past review.

US Royal Watcher 01-14-2014 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ish (Post 1633024)
According to the list posted in Catherine's thread they ring the bell for the monarch and her spouse, their children, and the direct line of succession (I can't remember if George is included, but William is).

From that list, it doesn't look like the bells rang for Diana's birthday. This could be something new. If it is new and the bells ring for Catherine, they should ring for Camilla.

cepe 01-14-2014 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher (Post 1633165)
From that list, it doesn't look like the bells rang for Diana's birthday. This could be something new. If it is new and the bells ring for Catherine, they should ring for Camilla.

why would Diana be on that list?

US Royal Watcher 01-14-2014 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cepe (Post 1633172)
why would Diana be on that list?

Sorry if I wasn't clear. Apparently the bells didn't ring on Catherine's birthday last year. If the reason the bells were rung for Catherine is because Catherine gave birth to the future King, the bells should have rang for Diana when she was alive. If the bells never rang for Diana, then it is obvious ringing the bells for Catherine is the start of a new tradition.

Royal_Royal 01-14-2014 10:06 AM

If I'm correct, that's the first time the bells rang for The Duchess of Cambridge, so I think is rather obvious why the bells never rang for The Duchess of Cornwall before: this is the first years of bells ranging for the future Queens and The of Cornwall's birthday is only in July, while The Duchess of Cambridge's is in January.

But maybe I'm wrong.

scooter 01-14-2014 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ish (Post 1633024)
According to the list posted in Catherine's thread they ring the bell for the monarch and her spouse, their children, and the direct line of succession (I can't remember if George is included, but William is).

Catherine's inclusion can be for one of two reasons - she provided genetic material to someone in the direct line, or she's married to someone in the direct line. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if it's a combination of the two.

Camilla's previous exclusion ignores the fact that she is married to the heir to the throne and has been for almost nine years now. She is going to be the next monarch's consort, and deserves to be recognized as such, even if she didn't contribute genetic material to the next generation.

Camilla won't be the first consort to not give birth to the monarch's heir apparent. There's no reason to deny her something granted to the DoE and Catherine simply on those grounds.

They ring for DoE because he is the spouse of the sovereign and the parent of the heir. Should Charles out live his mother and become king, then it would be traditionally appropriate to ring them for Camilla. At the moment she is NOT the spouse of the monarch, only the spouse of the heir, and will never be a parent of the heir. That would be the difference IMO. It has nothing to do with how many anniversaries they have celebrated.

Lumutqueen 01-14-2014 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Royal_Royal (Post 1633179)
If I'm correct, that's the first time the bells rang for The Duchess of Cambridge, so I think is rather obvious why the bells never rang for The Duchess of Cornwall before: this is the first years of bells ranging for the future Queens and The of Cornwall's birthday is only in July, while The Duchess of Cambridge's is in January.

But maybe I'm wrong.

They ring when a member of the RF is EITHER the monarch, the heir, the spouse of the monarch or the mother of an heir. They wouldn't have rung for Catherine last January because she hadn't given birth to George.

Do bells get rung for spouses of any member of the royal family? If not, then I understand why Camilla has not been included.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:02 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises