|
Post by Imperfect1 on Apr 7, 2023 18:39:49 GMT
I'm still reading more into it. From my understanding Charles is going against his late mother's wishes and changing her official title from Queen Consort to just Queen. This comes on the heels of him breaking his original promise when he was given permission to marry her. Maybe I am dense, but what I read gives me every indication that this change is more than her just not being referred to as a consort. But what more could it be? In the UK there's only 2 levels of king/queen. Regnant and consort. These titles denote STATUS. The only change in Camilla's STATUS as queen, would be if she had the power to RULE. But RULING only comes with BIRTH RIGHTS and Camilla doesn't have that. So no matter what she's called, she can only be a CONSORT because she receives that status by marrying a king. So whether people call her Queen Camilla or Queen Consort Camilla, it's exactly the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by FannyMare on Apr 7, 2023 19:10:18 GMT
I'm still reading more into it. From my understanding Charles is going against his late mother's wishes and changing her official title from Queen Consort to just Queen. This comes on the heels of him breaking his original promise when he was given permission to marry her. Maybe I am dense, but what I read gives me every indication that this change is more than her just not being referred to as a consort. But what more could it be? In the UK there's only 2 levels of king/queen. Regnant and consort. These titles denote STATUS. The only change in Camilla's STATUS as queen, would be if she had the power to RULE. But RULING only comes with BIRTH RIGHTS and Camilla doesn't have that. So no matter what she's called, she can only be a CONSORT because she receives that status by marrying a king. So whether people call her Queen Camilla or Queen Consort Camilla, it's exactly the same thing. Exactly, and most people don't give a tinker's cuss what's she's called.
|
|
|
Post by Cuddles on Apr 7, 2023 21:23:32 GMT
But what more could it be? In the UK there's only 2 levels of king/queen. Regnant and consort. These titles denote STATUS. The only change in Camilla's STATUS as queen, would be if she had the power to RULE. But RULING only comes with BIRTH RIGHTS and Camilla doesn't have that. So no matter what she's called, she can only be a CONSORT because she receives that status by marrying a king. So whether people call her Queen Camilla or Queen Consort Camilla, it's exactly the same thing. Exactly, and most people don't give a tinker's cuss what's she's called. I disagree, FM. Going back to what FireWoman said, I'm not sure if the bolded below means that Camilla can be called The Queen but I think so. people.com/royals/queen-elizabeth-no-longer-called-her-majesty-the-queen/After she "peacefully" died at age 96 on September 8 and her funeral was held on September 19, Buckingham Palace has shifted their royal reference to the monarch in communications from "Her Majesty the Queen" to "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth." Gert's Royals explained the change on Thursday: "Pre-funeral she was 'Her Majesty The Queen,' now she is officially referred to as 'Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth.' 'The' in a title indicates current title holder. No 'The' means former title holder, former spouse of title holder, etc."
In another styling switch, Queen Elizabeth's eldest son King Charles III has followed his mother's lead in keeping his first name as he steps up as sovereign and now signs his name in the same way that she did. On top of the Queen's casket at her state funeral in London on Monday was a loving message on royal letterhead from the new King, which read, "In loving and devoted memory, Charles R." King Charles' new signature comes with his new role as monarch. The "R" after his name stands for "Rex," which means "King" in Latin, the traditional signature for the monarch dating back to the 12th century. When used by Queens, the "R" stands for "Regina," or "Queen" in Latin. During her historic reign, Queen Elizabeth would sign official communications as "Elizabeth R." (That's a fun tidbit.)
|
|
|
Post by justCoz on Apr 7, 2023 21:54:22 GMT
Yes, Cuddles, I believe Camilla can now be called 'Her Majesty The Queen' because she is the current title holder (regardless of reigning or consort). When Diana was married to Charles, she was "The Princess of Wales," but after they divorced, she was only "Princess of Wales" without the 'The' included. The same happened to Sarah. She was The Duchess of York, but now she's only Duchess of York. But all of them only have/had those titles because of their marriages. They don't hold that title in their own right. Neither Princess Anne's nor Princess Alexandra's husbands get to be called Prince because the men aren't privy to using their wife's titles. Princess Beatrice's and Princess Eugenie's husbands are the same. Furthermore, if princes aren't given another title, like a duke or earl, then the wife is called by the prince's name. Like Prince Michael of Kent's wife is called Princess Michael, not by her name. (I believe her name is Marie-Chantel but not positive.) Princess Michael is her title.
|
|
|
Post by FireWoman on Apr 8, 2023 1:50:45 GMT
Yes, Cuddles , I believe Camilla can now be called 'Her Majesty The Queen' because she is the current title holder (regardless of reigning or consort). When Diana was married to Charles, she was "The Princess of Wales," but after they divorced, she was only "Princess of Wales" without the 'The' included. The same happened to Sarah. She was The Duchess of York, but now she's only Duchess of York. But all of them only have/had those titles because of their marriages. They don't hold that title in their own right. Neither Princess Anne's nor Princess Alexandra's husbands get to be called Prince because the men aren't privy to using their wife's titles. Princess Beatrice's and Princess Eugenie's husbands are the same. Furthermore, if princes aren't given another title, like a duke or earl, then the wife is called by the prince's name. Like Prince Michael of Kent's wife is called Princess Michael, not by her name. ( I believe her name is Marie-Chantel but not positive.) Princess Michael is her title. Soooo close, hehe, Marie-Christine Anna Agnes Hedwig Ida. Diana had a bit more involved with her title... She was, when married to Chuck, Her Royal Highness, The Princess of Wales and the 50 other titles hee had. Diana lost the HRH after the divorce and was allowed to use Diana, Princess of Wales. However, she was never actually "Princess Diana" as she was not (like Mary, Anne or Charlotte.. let us not get into the whole Princess Royale discussion here lol) a Princess by Birth. It was the stripping of the HRH that meant something, not the The or even Princess. Heck if I understand it all correctly that was only her title with respect to Wales.. in Scotland she was only known as Duchess. So much like with Camilla's title, as yes she was upon her marriage (like Diana), HRH The Princess of Wales, which they chose not to use due to her lack of popularity with the public and its association with Diana, but went with Duchess of Cornwall and was styled HRH The Duchess of Cornwall. IMO, unless you are the current Regent, titles are soooooooooo confusing. This titles for the oldest male, this title for the heir apparent, this title for the oldest living daughter of the current monarch...sigh.. it is too much, lol.
|
|
|
Post by MissGriss on Apr 8, 2023 2:39:00 GMT
Here’s the invitation to the coronation of Queen Elizabeth’s father and mother. As you can see the language is exactly the same as Charles and Camilla's invitation. While the queen mother was also a Queen Consort, the word consort is not included in the invitation. I think it's pretty clear that Charles isn't doing anything out of the ordinary and that this is exactly what his mother wanted when she said that Camilla should be known as Queen Consort. ETA: Oops. The image didn't come through. Here's a second try.
|
|
|
Post by Cuddles on Apr 8, 2023 3:31:23 GMT
I think it's pretty clear that Charles isn't doing anything out of the ordinary and that this is exactly what his mother wanted when she said that Camilla should be known as Queen Consort. I both agree and disagree with this... the mere fact that he's been able to divorce and then marry someone who is divorced is out of the ordinary! And given how she's entered the family, it's also extraordinary that her grandchildren will play such a large role in the Coronation! It's all so untraditional and yet she's being granted a traditional title.
|
|
ccl
FORT Regular
Posts: 438
|
Post by ccl on Apr 8, 2023 4:08:55 GMT
I mean, the whole Church of England started because Henry VIII wanted to divorce his wife. That act of divorce, and the church it founded as a result, has helped shape the modern monarchy. And that same Church of England, born out of one King’s divorce, will be heavily involved in this divorced king’s investiture. So Charles III will not be the first divorced King of England, nor should his divorced status be viewed as a never-before-seen thing. And divorce nowadays is much more common (as it is easier to get) than it was previously. Most of Queen Elizabeth’s children have been divorced. Camilla is Charles‘s current wife. She is being given the title that is granted to a King’s wife in Britain. Not a big deal, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Cuddles on Apr 8, 2023 5:49:59 GMT
I mean, the whole Church of England started because Henry VIII wanted to divorce his wife. That act of divorce, and the church it founded as a result, has helped shape the modern monarchy. And that same Church of England, born out of one King’s divorce, will be heavily involved in this divorced king’s investiture. So Charles III will not be the first divorced King of England, nor should his divorced status be viewed as a never-before-seen thing. And divorce nowadays is much more common (as it is easier to get) than it was previously. Most of Queen Elizabeth’s children have been divorced. Camilla is Charles‘s current wife. She is being given the title that is granted to a King’s wife in Britain. Not a big deal, in my opinion. Henry was just hopping bed to bed looking for an heir, having annulments as if his actions never took place. And Anne Boleyn was executed for adultery. www.history.com/news/royal-family-divorce-remarry-meghan-markle-wallis-simpson
|
|
|
Post by Arielflies on Apr 9, 2023 14:35:59 GMT
And the Roman Catholic Church approved? or was there dissension to the point he started his own church to cover his sins?
|
|
|
Post by dagwood on Apr 9, 2023 21:09:26 GMT
Honestly, what does it matter? The Queen blessed their marriage and wanted Camilla to be known as Queen. She will be officially Queen Consort but the term Consort is never brought out. Prince Phillip was officially a Consort but was just called Prince Phillip. Same for The Queen mum, she was consort but just known as Queen until her daughter became Queen. Catherine will be Queen Consort but she will be known as Queen Catherine.
Divorce is not a big deal anymore. Shoot, if the Queen had let Charles be with the woman he loved, this would not have been a problem because it would have always been Queen Camilla. Yes, the way he treated Diana was wrong, but there comes a time when that needs to be let go. The only good thing that came out of that marriage were the boys. If the boys can accept Camilla, why do the rest of us think what we think matters?
Edit: Devil's advocate here. So what if he changes her title to actual Queen...who does that hurt? Like the president, the Royals are little more than figureheads for the country anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Cuddles on Apr 9, 2023 22:04:32 GMT
And the Roman Catholic Church approved? or was there dissension to the point he started his own church to cover his sins? They did not, that’s why he broke away. Shady character Divorces although possible were uncommon - the article I posted said 131 in the 18th century. And even when they became more common, they were frowned upon for anyone in the monarchy. Most notably, it says that until 2002 you basically couldn’t marry a divorced person whose ex was still living. So when Queen Elizabeth approved of Charles marrying Camilla, that was a big deal.
|
|
|
Post by rockytopchick on Apr 11, 2023 19:17:26 GMT
I have wondered for a long time - if Katherine of Aragon had a healthy baby boy or two, would those of us of Anglo-Saxon descent still be Catholics?
|
|
|
Post by Imperfect1 on Apr 12, 2023 10:45:16 GMT
I have wondered for a long time - if Katherine of Aragon had a healthy baby boy or two, would those of us of Anglo-Saxon descent still be Catholics? Interesting question! Some would still be Catholics, of course. But for the rest, my guess is that probably not. There have been so many religious occurrences throughout history that had nothing to do with King Henry VIII, but that led to all of the various Christian religions that developed throughout the years. I think that many of you who were of Anglo-Saxon descent would probably have found your home in one of them.
|
|
|
Post by Cuddles on Apr 12, 2023 12:38:10 GMT
Queen Elizabeth II "always detested" Camilla Parker Bowles and only agreed to give her blessing for the royal to be known as "Queen Consort" because of an "unspoken deal behind the scenes" over Prince Andrew, King Charles III's biographer told Newsweek's Royal Report podcast. Christopher Andersen, author of the new biography The King: The Life of Charles III, told Newsweek chief royal correspondent Jack Royston and royal commentator Kristen Meinzer that one of the new monarch's primary tasks is to "sell Britain on Camilla," his second wife after Princess Diana. Camilla, now Queen Camilla or the Queen Consort, met Charles in the 1970s, and from then on the couple had an on-and-off relationship. During his marriage to Diana, which began in 1981, Charles admitted to committing adultery when his marriage had become "irrevocably broken down." In a 1995 BBC Panorama interview, Diana said of Camilla, "Well, there were three of us in this marriage. So it was a bit crowded." Elizabeth's relationship with Camilla, before she married Charles and then as a daughter-in-law, has been widely speculated about. In the early years of Charles' relationship with her, the queen reportedly regarded Camilla with caution. That grew to a total distancing following Diana's death, but the queen began warming up toward her in the later years of her life. "The queen always detested Camilla," Andersen said. "The Queen Mother particularly detested Camilla because she was throwing a wrench in the works. Because of Camilla, the monarchy was kind of brought to the brink of destruction. "Charles would not give up Camilla, and as a result, well, we know what happened with all the scandals and whatnot," he continued. "So when Diana died, Camilla was blamed by a lot of people for the situation which resulted in Diana's death, and Camilla became the most hated woman in England, if not the world, for a while there." Following the princess's death, a palace spin operation titled "Operation PB" (Parker Bowles) was reportedly enacted in an attempt to rehabilitate the image of the woman in Charles' life. "It took eight years for Charles to finally convince everybody to accept Camilla as his wife, to convince the queen to allow him to marry Camilla. He had to jump through all those hoops," Andersen told Meinzer. As part of this, "he promised he would never make Camilla queen, that she would be princess consort," Andersen said. "I knew from the beginning...that that would never happen, that he loves her too much to insult her in that way and that he always intended to make Camilla queen. "He lobbied Queen Elizabeth for 17 years to make that happen, and she resisted it, not because she disliked Camilla—because she kind of warmed up to her a bit—but because she knew the vast majority of people in the country would find it distasteful and it would be a problem for the monarchy," the author said. Things changed, according to Andersen, when Charles was able to lobby for Camilla's elevated title during the troubles Prince Andrew faced in early 2022 over a sexual assault lawsuit lodged against him by Virginia Giuffre, who has said she was a victim of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Although the prince denied the allegations against him, he settled the suit out of court. In February 2022, the queen said on the 70th anniversary of her accession to the throne: "When, in the fullness of time, my son Charles becomes king, I know you will give him and his wife Camilla the same support that you have given me. And it is my sincere wish that, when that time comes, Camilla will be known as Queen Consort as she continues her own loyal service." As a result, there has been little opposition to Camilla taking on that title after the queen's death in September. Third-quarter polling results by YouGov show that Camilla has a 44 percent popularity rating with the British public, on par with her husband. By contrast, Queen Elizabeth II had 73 percent, Kate Middleton 66 percent and Prince William 65 percent. Newsweek has reached out to Buckingham Palace for comment. www.newsweek.com/king-charles-first-job-sell-britain-queen-camilla-biographer-podcast-1757412
|
|
|
Post by FireWoman on Apr 12, 2023 14:03:14 GMT
It is funny, when he was with Diana, who held a popularity rating of like 72, his rating was MUCH higher.. near 70. Now he is down in the 40s. I still have not warmed to Camilla, I still see her as a washed up old horse fart.
|
|
amber
FORT Addict
Posts: 1,190
|
Post by amber on Apr 12, 2023 15:33:26 GMT
Well, FireWoman, I don't know if I care that much, except I think (old horse fart) Camilla is acceptable, along with Charles.
What I find most interesting is that these (Royal) people care about love. Despite all that has happened, Charles loves Camilla and still loves Camilla. A part of him loves Diana, too. Although there is good reason to crap on Harry completely -- well deserved to happen -- btw, Charles loves his younger son and keeps the door open.
|
|
|
Post by FannyMare on Apr 12, 2023 16:35:54 GMT
Well, FireWoman, I don't know if I care that much, except I think (old horse fart) Camilla is acceptable, along with Charles. What I find most interesting is that these (Royal) people care about love. Despite all that has happened, Charles loves Camilla and still loves Camilla. A part of him loves Diana, too. Although there is good reason to crap on Harry completely -- well deserved to happen -- btw, Charles loves his younger son and keeps the door open. Charles has always loved Camilla,, he doesn't care what we think.. I think he's finally happy.. She loves the things he does, and I'm happy for him. We can't change the past, long live the king!
|
|
|
Post by AZChristian on Apr 12, 2023 18:18:33 GMT
On Wednesday, Buckingham Palace confirmed that Harry will attend the May 6 ceremony, though his wife, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, will remain behind in California with their 22-month-old daughter, Lilibet, and son, Archie — whose fourth birthday is on Coronation Day.
|
|
|
Post by FannyMare on Apr 12, 2023 18:30:41 GMT
On Wednesday, Buckingham Palace confirmed that Harry will attend the May 6 ceremony, though his wife, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, will remain behind in California with their 22-month-old daughter, Lilibet, and son, Archie — whose fourth birthday is on Coronation Day. I'm glad Harry will be there, I'm not sure what it will be like, not after the book, and the many interviews.
|
|
|
Post by Cuddles on Apr 12, 2023 18:48:54 GMT
Had the children been invited, the outcome might have been different. No parent enjoys being apart from his/her child on their birthday - those years when they are little go by so fast! But I'm sure Harry will make it up to his son when he gets home.
|
|
|
Post by MissGriss on Apr 12, 2023 21:32:00 GMT
I’m seeing articles saying that Meghan not going is a snub and very hurtful to her relationship with the Royal Family—something they can never come back from. But it seems to me that the royals would be breathing a huge sigh of relief. Having her there would put a lot of media attention on her and Harry rather than on the king, so it seems like a win for everyone.
What an I missing? Is it really more important to have both of them there even if it causes a distracting media frenzy?
|
|
|
Post by FannyMare on Apr 12, 2023 23:01:20 GMT
I’m seeing articles saying that Meghan not going is a snub and very hurtful to her relationship with the Royal Family—something they can never come back from. But it seems to me that they would be breathing a huge sigh of relief. Having her there would put a lot of media attention on her and Harry rather than on the king, so it seems like a win for everyone. What an I missing? Is it really more important to have both of them there even if it causes a distracting media frenzy? I don't think you're missing anything. The relationship is hanging on by a thread as it is. It is Archie's birthday, so there's that.
|
|
|
Post by MissGriss on Apr 12, 2023 23:21:33 GMT
I guess. I think the birthday is being overblown. A kid Archie’s age has no concept of dates unless someone tells them to care. They could throw him a birthday party a week late, and he’d be none the wiser.
|
|
|
Post by FannyMare on Apr 12, 2023 23:30:05 GMT
I guess. I think the birthday is being overblown. A kid Archie’s age has no concept of dates unless someone tells them to care. They could throw him a birthday party a week late, and he’d be none the wiser. True, but Harry won't be in the UK long, or take part in some of the Coronation. A quick fly in, from what I've read.
|
|
|
Post by Cuddles on Apr 13, 2023 0:08:18 GMT
I guess. I think the birthday is being overblown. A kid Archie’s age has no concept of dates unless someone tells them to care. They could throw him a birthday party a week late, and he’d be none the wiser. I would find it surprising if Meghan were to have any kind of big party without Harry present. It's likely they will celebrate as a family either beforehand or when Harry gets back. But I could still seeing factoring in his birthday when making this decision. I think it was probably a twofold situation - one being that he wasn't invited so they wouldn't get to spend the day with him, and two being that he wasn't invited (nor was Lilibet) so they would worry about his (their) safety as their security case has yet to be resolved. Unless I've missed something, that is.
|
|
|
Post by Imperfect1 on Apr 13, 2023 11:05:55 GMT
I’m seeing articles saying that Meghan not going is a snub and very hurtful to her relationship with the Royal Family—something they can never come back from. But it seems to me that the royals would be breathing a huge sigh of relief. Having her there would put a lot of media attention on her and Harry rather than on the king, so it seems like a win for everyone. What an I missing? Is it really more important to have both of them there even if it causes a distracting media frenzy? I totally agree with you, MissGriss, that the Royals and many other Brits are hugely relieved that Meghan isn't going to the coronation. And I'd go one step further to say that I think that Meghan is in a no-win situation. If she doesn't go, its a snub and if she does go, then she's a huge problem and distraction! So, she might as well do what is most comfortable for HER and for HER FAMILY!
|
|
|
Post by FannyMare on Apr 13, 2023 16:39:46 GMT
I’m seeing articles saying that Meghan not going is a snub and very hurtful to her relationship with the Royal Family—something they can never come back from. But it seems to me that the royals would be breathing a huge sigh of relief. Having her there would put a lot of media attention on her and Harry rather than on the king, so it seems like a win for everyone. What an I missing? Is it really more important to have both of them there even if it causes a distracting media frenzy? I totally agree with you, MissGriss , that the Royals and many other Brits are hugely relieved that Meghan isn't going to the coronation. And I'd go one step further to say that I think that Meghan is in a no-win situation. If she doesn't go, its a snub and if she does go, then she's a huge problem and distraction! So, she might as well do what is most comfortable for HER and for HER FAMILY! I agree, but I thought that's what they wanted. I've never seen anywhere that it's a snub, mostly it's a relief.
|
|
amber
FORT Addict
Posts: 1,190
|
Post by amber on Apr 13, 2023 16:44:32 GMT
I don't give a damn about HER and HER family. They're just another pothead family that doesn't need to live in California. So annoying.
|
|
|
Post by momrek06 on Apr 13, 2023 17:34:49 GMT
I am not into the Royals AT ALL. I have probably posted on this page MAYBE 3x. Anyway when I did read in the News that Megan is staying home to be with the children? Megan's Mother has been watching and caring for them since Archie was born so now Megan isn't not going because of the children Why can't her Mother watch them? AND the fact it is Archie's birthday. A 4yo birthday can be celebrated ANY TIME. Is Archie even going to know it's his birthday and the fact Harry will be at the Coronation is obvious Megan will NOT be celebrating Archie WITHOUT his father. I think (personally) it's rude she is NOT attending the Coronation. JMHO.
|
|