Prince Charles? - Page 6

Moonchilde · ‎05-23-2010

@Kachina624 wrote:
@PinkyPetunia wrote:
As I understand it, Charles can be King but Camilla will not be Queen.
@Pink petunia Her title will be "Princess Consort".

I posted a link to a British article (BBC I think) on this in a recent previous thread. Charles had announced when they were married that her title would be Queen Consort. This was in part because of how unpopular she was at the time. In a 2015 survey about her UK popularity, it had improved, but it was still about 60/40 not thrilled yet.

It was remarked in that article that it really is up to Charles alone when he becomes King, and that depending on the 'Camilla climate' at that time, whenever it is, he may decide to title her Queen after all - it's within both his power and his right as King.

Life without Mexican food is no life at all

esmerelda · ‎03-10-2010

@Moonchilde wrote:
@Kachina624 wrote:
@PinkyPetunia wrote:
As I understand it, Charles can be King but Camilla will not be Queen.
@Pink petunia Her title will be "Princess Consort".

I posted a link to a British article (BBC I think) on this in a recent previous thread. Charles had announced when they were married that her title would be Queen Consort. This was in part because of how unpopular she was at the time. In a 2015 survey about her UK popularity, it had improved, but it was still about 60/40 not thrilled yet.

It was remarked in that article that it really is up to Charles alone when he becomes King, and that depending on the 'Camilla climate' at that time, whenever it is, he may decide to title her Queen after all - it's within both his power and his right as King.

Why is Prince Philip not King Philip?

*********************
Keepin' it real.

Sweet_Serenity · ‎01-22-2016

@stevieb wrote:
There are things about Charles based on what I've read, and really, that's all any of us can go on... that I like and respect. There are also things about him that I truly don't... While I'd agree the whole marriage to Diana should've been better handled and far better managed, for better or worse, it's now in the history books... As for Diana, while I, along with many others, valued her far more than I do most of the 'royals', it's probably also true that she should have realized, and perhaps she did and just ultimately decided not to accept it as a permanent arrangement, that her marriage to Charles was a business deal, a marriage of convenience and not a love match. Had she done so, it's entirely possible she would have been able, within reason, to go her own way, doing pretty much as she wanted, and he would have done the same.

Excellent observation! One only needs to watch the video of the engagement, Body language between both of them. Obviously! Look very distance and frankly uncomfortable. When asked about-Love? Charles reply! Whatever love means! Clearly said it all. Think Di possibly thought in time she could change him? That never happens. Of course! This is my interpretation. Fact is, Like with all fairy tales, Happy ending isn't what the books told you it would be. Mean after all, Charles born to be King is first human being Diana coming from a broken home sought the very opposite. In my own experience with the same situation, Mine never came from marriage came from self esteem of my own accomplishment. Diana claimed herself, She left strong legacy. Shared her struggles touched us. William and Harry if not for Charles and Diana would never be, The same feeling I have concerning my wonderful Son. He's successful husband father lawyer. Wow! My comment longer than planned. 💁

Moonchilde · ‎05-23-2010

@esmerelda wrote:
@Moonchilde wrote:
@Kachina624 wrote:
@PinkyPetunia wrote:
As I understand it, Charles can be King but Camilla will not be Queen.
@Pink petunia Her title will be "Princess Consort".

I posted a link to a British article (BBC I think) on this in a recent previous thread. Charles had announced when they were married that her title would be Queen Consort. This was in part because of how unpopular she was at the time. In a 2015 survey about her UK popularity, it had improved, but it was still about 60/40 not thrilled yet.

It was remarked in that article that it really is up to Charles alone when he becomes King, and that depending on the 'Camilla climate' at that time, whenever it is, he may decide to title her Queen after all - it's within both his power and his right as King.
Why is Prince Philip not King Philip?

http://royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/insight/why-isnt-prince-philip-king-22725

http://www.ibtimes.com/crown-why-prince-philip-not-king-even-though-elizabeth-ii-queen-2443756

Life without Mexican food is no life at all

songbird · ‎03-21-2010

@willomenia wrote:
Camilla is as royal as Kate, which means not at all. Kate is really a commoner as well. Charles deserves to be the next king, he's prepared his whole life for this.

Camilla is the ninth cousin once removed to Charles. She is the direct descendant of William the Conqueror, the first Norman king of England. By Blood she's part of the Royal family.

Kate is not royal or part of the aristocracy She is a Commoner, Diana on the other hand was a Spencer aristocracy. Winston Churchill (the 1st one...Duke of Marlborough is her ancester.) He only had daughters. To keep the name from dying out, they became Spencer Churchill. Diana is a traditional name for many of the Spencer women.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camilla,_Duchess_of_Cornwall

Noel7 · ‎03-09-2010

Kate's Royal Connections:

Royal ancestry

According to genealogists Patrick Cracroft-Brennan and Anthony Adolph, the Middleton siblings descend, via their mother, from Elizabeth Plantagenet, King Edward IV's illegitimate daughter by Elizabeth Lucy, via Sir Thomas Blakiston Conyers, 9th Bt. of Horden, Durham.[141][142] Thus, Catherine and Prince William's closest common ancestors are Sir William Blakiston of Gibside Estate and his wife Jane Lambton, making them eleventh cousins once removed,[141][142] These findings echo Christopher Challender Child's research, published in 2011.[143]

It was reported in December 2014 that the famous Blakiston-Bowes Cabinet, held at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, provided proof that Catherine shared ancestry with Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother. Catherine and the Queen Mother share a common ancestor, County Durham's Sir William Blakiston, whose great granddaughter, Elizabeth Blakiston, married into the Bowes-Lyon family who were ancestors of the Queen Mother, née Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. The cabinet was made in Newcastle to celebrate the union of the two gentry families. Reports suggest that Catherine and the Queen Mother's blood cousinship was the reason why Catherine wore the Queen Mother's tiara when she wed Prince William.[144][145][146][147]

Genealogical research by William Addams Reitwiesner, also published in 2011, found that Catherine is descended from Sir Thomas Fairfax (c. 1475–1520) and his wife Agnes Gascoigne, an ancestor of Diana, Princess of Wales, and a descendant of King Edward III, via Michael Middleton's grandmother Olive Middleton née Lupton. This ancestry makes Catherine and Prince William fourteenth cousins once removed.[148][149][150]

Wiki

Tinkrbl44 · ‎08-23-2010

@songbird wrote:
@willomenia wrote:
Camilla is as royal as Kate, which means not at all. Kate is really a commoner as well. Charles deserves to be the next king, he's prepared his whole life for this.
Camilla is the ninth cousin once removed to Charles. She is the direct descendant of William the Conqueror, the first Norman king of England. By Blood she's part of the Royal family.

Kate is not royal or part of the aristocracy She is a Commoner, Diana on the other hand was a Spencer aristocracy. Winston Churchill (the 1st one...Duke of Marlborough is her ancester.) He only had daughters. To keep the name from dying out, they became Spencer Churchill. Diana is a traditional name for many of the Spencer women.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camilla,_Duchess_of_Cornwall

What has always cracked me up about the Brits is that they think their accomplishments and status are based in large part on what their dead relatives did! Anyone else see the flaw in that thinking? LOL

Greeneyedlady21 · ‎01-06-2015

I remember reading once that Prince Charles never even had to put his own toothpaste on a toothbrush. IF that's true I think it might explain quite a bit about why certain aspects of life were more difficult for him.

I remember the story and video about the Queen greeting him with a handshake when he was a young boy, that was contrasted with Diana and her public hugs and kisses for her boys. I think their marriage was doomed from the start, arranged marriage and they didn't really know each other at all. Prince Charles seems to have changed and matured since Diana died, by all accounts he really did well by his sons and helped them through the loss of their Mom. I think they've both turned out well. William and Kate knew each other well and even lived together in school. You can see how they want their kids to have a more normal and down to earth existence.

"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Noel7 · ‎03-09-2010

@Tinkrbl44 wrote:
@songbird wrote:
@willomenia wrote:
Camilla is as royal as Kate, which means not at all. Kate is really a commoner as well. Charles deserves to be the next king, he's prepared his whole life for this.
Camilla is the ninth cousin once removed to Charles. She is the direct descendant of William the Conqueror, the first Norman king of England. By Blood she's part of the Royal family.

Kate is not royal or part of the aristocracy She is a Commoner, Diana on the other hand was a Spencer aristocracy. Winston Churchill (the 1st one...Duke of Marlborough is her ancester.) He only had daughters. To keep the name from dying out, they became Spencer Churchill. Diana is a traditional name for many of the Spencer women.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camilla,_Duchess_of_Cornwall

What has always cracked me up about the Brits is that they think their accomplishments and status are based in large part on what their dead relatives did! Anyone else see the flaw in that thinking? LOL

****************************

@Tinkrbl44

I don't believe they do think that way.

Henry Gates PBS has a wonderful show tracing the ancestry of various well known people.

Most are thrilled to discover what their ancestors did and who they were. It's a human reaction, not a British one.

I know you don't approve of the British monarchy, but hope you realize they are not the only monarchy that exists. nor the only people who trace their ancestry. In fact, quite a few people on this board have done that.

seaBreeze · ‎02-04-2014

I wish that Prince Charles would abdicate the thrown as his uncle Edward did to marry Ms. Simpson. Yes, I know it no longer matters about the scandalous lifestyles of the rich and famous but ....

Kate and William are the epitome of class and eloquence. A decade or two of Charles & Ms. Bowles will be too much to bear (for me)--but with the young prince taking over his grandmother's thrown (I wish her long life)....I hope to see this in my lifetime.