The Monarchy under Charles


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
hel said:
Now that we've discussed Camilla's future title to death, it appears that a challenge to Charles' claim has arisen. How exciting!

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/...-london-claiming-to-be-the-rightful-king.html



He has graciously agreed not to take the throne while Her Majesty is still alive, out of respect for her long years of service, thus throwing into doubt whether there will be a monarchy under Charles.

There's a photo of the article in the Times that makes for entertaining reading.
Click to expand...

Charles is going to be king. This news makes no sense.
 
Blog Real said:
Charles is going to be king. This news makes no sense.
Click to expand...

A mentally unstable person has taken out a ridiculous ad (complete with a Tolkein reference) claiming that he's got a right to the throne, via an ancient forebear from Wales, and a newspaper has decided to poke fun at him. It's a little funny, but it's mostly sad.
 
I recently found out that is officially also the case for Queen Mathilde and was the case for Queen Paola,who, in official documents, are cited as "Queen [name], Princess of Belgium" and not as "Queen of the Belgians". In practice, however, that important distinction is frequently ignored.[/QUOTE]


This was always the case in Scotland. The Monarch was styled King of Scots but his wife was not Queen of Scots.
 
Iain said:
I recently found out that is officially also the case for Queen Mathilde and was the case for Queen Paola,who, in official documents, are cited as "Queen [name], Princess of Belgium" and not as "Queen of the Belgians". In practice, however, that important distinction is frequently ignored.
Click to expand...

It is the same for Máxima who by law is HRH Princess Máxima of the Netherlands (Article 8, Second Part, at A, of the Royal House Act 2002). When her husband assumed the kingship, things became blurred.

As is the longstanding social custom, any wife of a titled person can be addressed by her husband's title(s). So since her husband's accession she has become Queen Maxima, Princess of the Netherlands. In fact just a mix of a titre de courtoisie (Queen Máxima) and her titre de jure (Princess of the Netherlands).
 
Ohhh... fake news at its best. :D

The instant Charles becomes King, Camilla becomes Queen. That is fact as Camilla is the right and lawful wife of a King. The monkey wrench in the works at the Accession Council would be Charles announcing that Camilla would be known as the Princess Consort (which the article boldly states she is already "known" as which is incorrect.).

With the death of HM, The Queen, we have to remember that Charles has just lost his mother and the nation will be in deep mourning. The last thing that is needed to happen is controversial to and fro about what Camilla is "known" as. I don't think either Charles or Camilla would want that at all. All focus should and rightfully be on the beloved monarch that has left this earth.
 
Duc_et_Pair said:
That article is so full of inaccuracies and misleading information. It could have been written by Kellyanne Conway: "alternative facts".

:ermm:
Click to expand...

Which parts are inaccurate?

eya said:
How Prince Charles Will Make Camilla Queen - The Daily Beast

"Making Camilla Queen"
Click to expand...

:previous:

The Guardian piece about the palace, government, and BBC's alleged plans for the death of Queen Elizabeth II is quite thorough.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens-when-queen-elizabeth-dies-london-bridge
 
Tatiana Maria said:
Which parts are inaccurate?
Click to expand...

This statement for one. "Since she married Charles in 2005, Camilla has been officially known as Princess Consort". :whistling:
 
Last edited:
The big story here is, Charles and the government never had any intention of making Camilla princess consort when Charles is king.

As the Guardian article points out, the title has no legal meaning in the UK. The wife of a King is always Queen.

The only potential issue is, it appears Charles lied or at least was deceptive when telling the public Camilla won't be Queen.

Be interesting if the press makes a stink about it.
 
Last edited:
Rudolph said:
Be interesting if the press makes a stink about it.
Click to expand...

I actually think that they will for the main reason being that some tabloids live, eat and breathe to stir up controversy no matter what is happening.
 
Osipi said:
I actually think that they will for the main reason being that some tabloids live, eat and breathe to stir up controversy no matter what is happening.
Click to expand...

Yup. Controversy for the sake of controversy
 
Rudolph said:
The big story here is, Charles and the government never had any intention of making Camilla princess consort when Charles is king.

As the Guardian article points out, the title has no legal meaning in the UK. The wife of a King is always Queen.

The only potential issue is, it appears Charles lied or at least was deceptive when telling the public Camilla won't be Queen.

Be interesting if the press makes a stink about it.
Click to expand...

Of course they had the intention to style her Princess Consort. Otherwise, they would not have announced it publicly when Charles got married to Camilla and, more significantly, the Palace would not have confirmed that is still the PoW's intention as they did in the Daily Beast article.

Official palace sources sought to rubbish The Daily Beast’s report, saying the claims were “without foundation,” and briefing that the substance of the statement made by Clarence House at the time of Camilla’s marriage to the prince—that Camilla would be called Princess Consort—still stood.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Rudolph said:
The big story here is, Charles and the government never had any intention of making Camilla princess consort when Charles is king.

As the Guardian article points out, the title has no legal meaning in the UK. The wife of a King is always Queen.

The only potential issue is, it appears Charles lied or at least was deceptive when telling the public Camilla won't be Queen.

Be interesting if the press makes a stink about it.
Click to expand...

The fact is, barring death, revolution, abdication or legislation, Camilla will be Queen. In addition to that, it may be possible that the King grants her the style of HRH The Princess Consort.

Needless to say, this can come to nought if the government of the day advises the King against such a move.
 
From The Guardian. Camilla was always going to be Queen.

“It’s bullshit,” one former courtier told me, describing it as “a sop to Diana”.

The fiction will end when Elizabeth II dies. Under common law, Camilla will become queen — the title always given to the wives of kings.

There is no alternative. “She is queen whatever she is called,” as one scholar put it. “If she is called Princess Consort there is an implication that she is not quite up to it. It’s a problem.”

There are plans to clarify this situation before the Queen dies, but King Charles is currently expected to introduce Queen Camilla at his Accession Council on D+1.
Click to expand...
 
muriel said:
The fact is, barring death, revolution, abdication or legislation, Camilla will be Queen. In addition to that, it may be possible that the King grants her the style of HRH The Princess Consort.

Needless to say, this can come to nought if the government of the day advises the King against such a move.
Click to expand...

From past conversations about this issue, I seem to recall too that in order for King Charles to create Camilla "HRH The Princess Consort", she would also have to be created a princess of the UK in her own right as there is absolutely no title that Charles will hold as King that she could take the style "Princess" from.

That, to me, is a big monkey wrench in the works and would be totally unprecedented as its never been done before. If it is done, it would then create the precedent that all wives of a King in the future would be called "HRH Princess Consort".
 
It was announced in 2005 that the 'intention' was that Camilla would be known as HRH The Princess Consort.

It was also stated, by the PM, in parliament that she would be 'The Queen' the instant Charles becomes The King so there was always some dispute over this issue. It was also said that for her to become The Princess Consort parliament would have to pass legislation to strip her of the title of Queen and reduce her to Princess Consort. How soon into the reign parliament would debate that issue and pass the legislation I don't know - maybe during the condolence motions that both houses will have on the day of, or day after, the Queen's death.

The 'intention' is still the official line.
 
Not necessarily a precedent.. but I don't think that they wever WANTED Camill to be princess Consort. I think that they always hoped that she would become popular enough to be seen as OK to be queen. Of couse she will be queen, once C is king but it IS possible that they could annonce that she's going to be known as Psss Consort.. howevr I think by the time she and Charles get to the throne, very few people will raise an eyebrow at her having the title Queen...
 
Iluvbertie said:
The 'intention' is still the official line.
Click to expand...

Is it? That's what Charles says but according to people behind the scenes, it was never the case.

Charles has every intention of Camilla being Queen and since 'princess consort' doesn't even exist in common law, there is no alternative.
 
Iluvbertie said:
It was announced in 2005 that the 'intention' was that Camilla would be known as HRH The Princess Consort.

It was also stated, by the PM, in parliament that she would be 'The Queen' the instant Charles becomes The King so there was always some dispute over this issue. It was also said that for her to become The Princess Consort parliament would have to pass legislation to strip her of the title of Queen and reduce her to Princess Consort. How soon into the reign parliament would debate that issue and pass the legislation I don't know - maybe during the condolence motions that both houses will have on the day of, or day after, the Queen's death.

The 'intention' is still the official line.
Click to expand...

Could you please provide a link to the Hansard archive where that statemen by the PM can be found ?
 
No I can't but I do remember that comment being made and televised at the time.

If you won't to find the Hansard record look it up - it was said in parliament in the couple of days before the wedding.

Rudolph said:
Is it? That's what Charles says but according to people behind the scenes, it was never the case.

Charles has every intention of Camilla being Queen and since 'princess consort' doesn't even exist in common law, there is no alternative.
Click to expand...


The website still says the 'intention' is that she will be called Princess Consort.

It has never been changed.

The so called people 'behind the scenes' haven't been identified so are like the ubiquitous 'sources close to the royal family' which is another way of saying 'the reporter is making this up but wants you to believe it'.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd say its blindlingly obvious that the RF didn't want Camilla to be relegated to this odd made up titlte. Even if they didn't like her, they would not want Charles' wife to hold a lesser positon than Queen..and by now I can't see that many people will object if she is known as and crowned Queen.
 
With me, its the actual identification of a source that makes it credible for me. Unidentified sources for information means, for me, that the information can't be verified.
 
Osipi said:
With me, its the actual identification of a source that makes it credible for me. Unidentified sources for information means, for me, that the information can't be verified.
Click to expand...

I have mixed feelings about this. As a rule, where the Royal Family is concerned I tend not to believe the anonymous sources but, as it was pointed out recently, had the Washington Post not been able to guarantee anonymity to their sources, they would never have uncovered Watergate.

I suppose, to me, it would depend on the importance of the information. Much as I love the POW and Camilla, whether she is called Queen or Princess Consort is of no importance. It has zero effect on anyone except Camilla.

Whether the President of the United States (or any other leader for that matter) is engaged in a conspiracy to subvert the constitution is a matter of importance. Anyone in power putting themselves above the law has enormous impact on the people they govern. In that case I would call the use of anonymous sources justified - just about.
 
You make very good points VictoriaB and that's exactly why we have the 1st amendment in the US and freedom of the press and journalists are protected from revealing their sources.

I think it takes scrutiny and a bit of wisdom to be able to determine which anonymous sources may actually be reliable and the reasons behind staying anonymous. If its a "source close to the palace" in the Daily Mail or the Sun or the Globe, I'd definitely question it. Someone that is whistle blowing on something deadly serious could be using anonymity to protect himself, his family and his freedoms.

There is always two sides to a coin and two sides to an argument and we're intelligent enough to determine what is truth for our own selves. :D
 
VictoriaB said:
I have mixed feelings about this. As a rule, where the Royal Family is concerned I tend not to believe the anonymous sources but, as it was pointed out recently, had the Washington Post not been able to guarantee anonymity to their sources, they would never have uncovered Watergate.

I suppose, to me, it would depend on the importance of the information. Much as I love the POW and Camilla, whether she is called Queen or Princess Consort is of no importance. It has zero effect on anyone except Camilla.

Whether the President of the United States (or any other leader for that matter) is engaged in a conspiracy to subvert the constitution is a matter of importance. Anyone in power putting themselves above the law has enormous impact on the people they govern. In that case I would call the use of anonymous sources justified - just about.
Click to expand...
Just as your President's wife is known as FLOTUS so too has the wife of the King in Britain been known as Queen.

Ill thought-out concessions were made when when Charles and Camilla married. But just as time has passed I believe most everyone in politics and the diplomatic service are hoping that hysteria has turned to reality and the UK doesn't get to "lose face" internationally.

Can you imagine how people will despise TPTB in the UK when they have to explain that . . . "well, you see, Charles and Camilla had an adulterous affair and this is her punishment, she only get's to be Princess Consort, yes, I know his ex wife was having affairs but, well, you know. No, of course having an affair is not grounds for punishment in the UK, but this is and exception. The King? Oh he doesn't get punished . . .

The reality of the whole farce will set the position of women as second class citizens back fifty years or more and make half the orders signed by the UK in the UN an exercise in totally hypocrisy.

So you see, it's not just Camilla that will be affected. The UK may not be an empire any more, but they don't want to be a joke either.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Marika86
Charles & Camilla: Visit to Romania, Italy, Holy See & Austria - Mar 29-Apr 6, 2017
3 4 5
Replies
127
Views
21K
Osipi
Osipi
JessRulz
Charles and Camilla: Tour of New Zealand and Australia - November 4-15, 2015
4 5 6
Replies
174
Views
26K
eya
E
JessRulz
  • Locked
Prince of Wales & Duchess of Cornwall: Visit to the United States - March 17-20, 2015
2 3
Replies
84
Views
20K
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri
JessRulz
  • Locked
Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall Current Events 27: January 2015-Sept 2022
22 23 24
Replies
695
Views
124K
JessRulz
JessRulz
Warren
Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall: Visit to Oman - March 17-19, 2013
Replies
5
Views
5K
kaykay
kaykay

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom