Will Catherine be Queen?

[davidg]

I would disagree with davidg when he states "Whether Camilla becomes Queen would largely depend on the coronation arrangements as she cannot assume the title Queen without a coronation."

I think the distinction here is that she becomes queen with a small q because she automatically assumes the rank of her husband. To be acknowledged by the country as a Queen in her own right requires the coronation

McFarkus makes an interesting point about Philip being a prince of Greece and entitled to the title HRH. That's not entirely accurate as the Greek royal family had been deposed. Therefore Philip "assumed" the title of prince but was no longer legally one in his own country. Courtesy would demand he be referred to that way by us but making him legally a UK prince solved all problems I think

[McClef]

A Queen Consort is not Queen in her own right in the way that a Queen Regnant is. She is Queen Consort by virtue of her marriage to the King not because of inheriting the throne.

[David Thorpe]

Just think – if there hadn’t been that little bit of difficulty back in 1775 all of this speculation could have been of some significance to our American compatriots. As it is I wonder why there should be such fascination about these individuals? Perhaps it is time for a groundswell of opinion in your country for a restoration of the monarchy and a return to the fold. After all what rational being would really want any old Tom, Dick or Harry being elected as the Head of State?
Just think of the advantages. No more Presidential elections every four years with all the hassle and expense that entails. And worthy figures like Donald Trump could become courtiers and nobles with titles, ermine robes and all the flummery that goes with that. No more worries about having to aspire to be the President any more. All that would be solved and everyone could be happy becoming subjects of a hereditary sovereign instead of that pesky citizen nonsense. And, of course, there would no longer be any need for a Constitution. Not with a monarch who rules with absolute authority. I mean how could anyone want anything else?
But I forget, of course. Some people in 1775 actually wanted something different – and they did something about it.

Despite the events of the mid-18th century here in the "new world", the British monarchy, at least between 1603 and 1776, is a part of the heritage of most Americans of the Scottish diaspora. Our unique history is very short compared to the European perspective.
Even with the assumption of a bit of tongue-in-cheek in your observations, the parliamentary monarchy system does indeed have some advantages over our two-party circus.
And we do have an aristocracy here, if not officially recognized by the government. Only the titles are different. Rather than Baronet, Viscount, Earl and such, we have CEO, LLD and NFL.

[Woodsheal]

Just think – if there hadn’t been that little bit of difficulty back in 1775 all of this speculation could have been of some significance to our American compatriots. As it is I wonder why there should be such fascination about these individuals? Perhaps it is time for a groundswell of opinion in your country for a restoration of the monarchy and a return to the fold. After all what rational being would really want any old Tom, Dick or Harry being elected as the Head of State?
Just think of the advantages. No more Presidential elections every four years with all the hassle and expense that entails. And worthy figures like Donald Trump could become courtiers and nobles with titles, ermine robes and all the flummery that goes with that. No more worries about having to aspire to be the President any more. All that would be solved and everyone could be happy becoming subjects of a hereditary sovereign instead of that pesky citizen nonsense. And, of course, there would no longer be any need for a Constitution. Not with a monarch who rules with absolute authority. I mean how could anyone want anything else?
But I forget, of course. Some people in 1775 actually wanted something different – and they did something about it.

Phil, I find this fascination of my fellow countrymen amusing and bemusing as well. Thank heaven for that bit of parchment dated July 4, 1776...!

[Phil]

And we do have an aristocracy here, if not officially recognized by the government. Only the titles are different. Rather than Baronet, Viscount, Earl and such, we have CEO, LLD and NFL.

But we have CEO's, LLD's although perhaps not NFL also. And everyone here can, with a little hard work and perhaps some back-scratching and nepotism can aspire to this 'aristocracy' as you describe it. The other kind, however, no chance except for the odd rich American heiress who they allow to marry in provided she comes with a sufficiently large fortune to rescue their failing fortunes. Otherwise it is down to an accident of birth which rules out you, me and, I suspect, most others on this site. I have long since come to terms with the fact that I will never be a King or a member of the nobility but perhaps, just perhaps, you might have become President or one of those other American equivalents.
One other point that has not really been explored in this thread is the distinction between the relationship of a king or Queen and the people. In Scotland it is 'Rex Scotorum' i.e. King of Scots (the people) whereas in England it is King of England (the country). The Declaration of Arbroath is clear on this where it says "Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King; for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom -- for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself. " In England Kings rule, supposedly, by divine right whereas in Scotland they rule by the will of the people. A subtle distinction but an important one.

[Pleater]

It was 1066 that altered things in England.

When the Normans took over the land was confiscated from the people, as punishment for not rising up against Harold's claim to the throne, and then it was portioned out at William's whim as reward for service, but only to hold for the king.

In a reversal of the former situation the people were then considered tied to the land, as long as the lord was agreeable to their presence, or their existence.

Noble families were reduced to serving their new masters at whatever suited - though that was possibly the start of the idea of the 'gentleman's gentleman' and the hierarchy of servants in great houses, where the senior staff had their own servants, were served at table etc. in the same way as the family. Some, however were reduced to the level of serfs - there are quite a few recorded in the Domesday book.

Anne the Pleater :ootd:

[JohntheBiker]

McFarkus makes an interesting point about Philip being a prince of Greece and entitled to the title HRH. That's not entirely accurate as the Greek royal family had been deposed. Therefore Philip "assumed" the title of prince but was no longer legally one in his own country. Courtesy would demand he be referred to that way by us but making him legally a UK prince solved all problems I think

It can get quite complicated. Philip was a prince of Greece and Denmark. While the family was deposed in Greece, the Danish connection remained and he was still a prince of Denmark.

[McClef]

And Denmark still issues passports (upon request) to descendants of King Christian IX and Queen Louise and the former King Constantine of Greece has one, though he is also in his own right a Prince of Denmark. He still sometimes uses the title of King but no longer as King of the Hellenes.

Yes, complicated indeed!

[Phil]

And Denmark still issues passports (upon request) to descendants of King Christian IX and Queen Louise and the former King Constantine of Greece has one, though he is also in his own right a Prince of Denmark. He still sometimes uses the title of King but no longer as King of the Hellenes.

Yes, complicated indeed!

And Ireland issues passports to anyone with a tenuous connection. Tony Blair and his children all have Irish passports seemingly. I wonder why?

[Phil]

It was 1066 that altered things in England.

When the Normans took over the land was confiscated from the people, as punishment for not rising up against Harold's claim to the throne, and then it was portioned out at William's whim as reward for service, but only to hold for the king.

In a reversal of the former situation the people were then considered tied to the land, as long as the lord was agreeable to their presence, or their existence.

Noble families were reduced to serving their new masters at whatever suited - though that was possibly the start of the idea of the 'gentleman's gentleman' and the hierarchy of servants in great houses, where the senior staff had their own servants, were served at table etc. in the same way as the family. Some, however were reduced to the level of serfs - there are quite a few recorded in the Domesday book.

Anne the Pleater :ootd:

The Norman conquest was the start of all the so-called "age of chivalry" which effectvely disenfranchised the existing population and gave all the privileges to the invaders. They enjoyed an existence as "Superiors" over the "vassals" who served them in an almost master/slave relationship and they exercised their superiority through the grant of arms which was denied to lesser mortals.
There are fairly recent examples of this type of behaviour where a section of society is discriminated against for a very spurious reason which I won't go into here but the whole "chivalry" thing does have its roots in discrimination of the basest kind.
The Normans, however, did not manage to impose their ethnic manipulation upon the Scots, despite worming their way into the upper echelons of society - no doubt with the encouragement of their compatriots down south. Their Kings were still neither crowned nor anointed but inaugurated at Scone and so were Kings of the people of Scotland and never Kings of Scotland. I do hope that the distinction is clearly understood because that is, effectively, the situation to this present day.