Good to know (and I seem to remember that dimly, come to think of it). Ta!
Since Spain has been mentioned, they referred to kings consort until recently – the most recent being Francisco de Asís, king consort of the queen regnant Isabel II (for all the good it did her).
Now, though, the constitution refers to “the Queen Consort or the consort of the Queen”, not the Queen or King Consort.
Was it she who was quoted as saying something like “what can I say about a man who has more lace on his clothing than I do?”
Apparently – I found a reference: Carmen Llorca Vilaplana, Isabel II y su
tiempo.
This is hardly a disqualification for the throne. In fact, considering the history of his predecessors, one could be excused for thinking that committing adultery was one of the requirements of being king.
Or as Camilla put it so pithily when she first met Charles: “My great-grandmother was your great-great-grandfather’s mistress, so how about it?”
Indeed. Which is why the Duke of Kent is still twenty-third in the line of succession, despite the fact that his wife converted to Catholicism in 1994.
That was exactly Alfonso XIII’s case, and no, the eldest princess never was Queen.
There were… 3 or 4? princesses already. The eldest princess was Heir Apparent but due to semisalic sucession (and to nobody at the time considering that life may begin at any point other than during the actual 15 minutes), they waited until the expected baby was born. If Alfonso had been an Alfonsina, his eldest sister would have been crowned then (although the regency would have continued for several years still, since she wasn’t of age).
The first four months of María Cristina’s regency were for “either her eldest daughter or her unborn son, pending determination of the baby’s sex.” The next 20 years, for her son.
So the responses for Spain (Alfonso XIII) and England (Victoria) are different. The current Constitution of Spain doesn’t consider the issue as far as I recall, but I imagine we’d follow the precedent.
Don’t you mean Heir Presumptive?
Gosh .Actually I was addressing Jiiims post on dorkhood.
But as you mention it I dont recall a saintly character being in the job spec.for king.
When HenryV111 made himself head of the C.of E. he wasnt reknowned for living like a monk.
Charlie did commit adultery with the one woman that hes always loved.
As part of the job arranged marriages are considered to be a duty not to be shirked so he duly went ahead and married a woman he didn’t know and who didn’t know him.
After she started putting herself about to the point where even the Windsors could no longer cover up for her little indescretions he went back to seeing Camilla.
Wow he must be evil incarnate.
The sort of parents whos kids are very much in the public eye and have various people dead set against them for political reasons,for reasons of envy or just plain cranks, these people jumping on their every action misinterpreting them to their own satisfaction.
“Oh thats just typical ,just because they’re Royals they’re making sure that their boy Charlies getting an easy time at school,he’s only got to go running to the teachers and some other boy is put in trouble”
Thats an example of how people get their own back on people that they envy or dislike,the solution? your boy endures blatant bullying .
m.t.f.
Yes she was ,with one man ,the man she has always loved
Whereas Di commited multiple adultary often with married men .
She also stalked married men and harassed their wives with silent phone calls .
Unfortunately the police recognised her mobile number.
So by your own standards Diana was most definitely NOT fit to be queen.
Diana inspired the sort of “love” that many people in the public eye receive from people who have never actually met them IRL. (which to many of us seems a trifle disturbing to say the least) by very skillful and sometimes not so skillful manipulation of the media.
Holding secret interviews with a reporter in a kensington restaraunt which appeared the following day as being the accounts of “friends of Diana” giving her fairy stories the appearance of unbiased factual reports from third party witnesses.
She also rang the press up one night posing as an anonymous member of the public to tell them that Di was making a "secret"visit to the Ormond street hospital.
(But once again her mobile number was recognised by the journos.)
She spent many hours learning about presentation of herself on t.v. ,many hours being coached in the use of body language(hence the "little girl lost look"head tilted to one side in the famous T.V. interview.)
She was liberal with her flattery calling a young French girl “the daughter she’d never had” numerous people,not just her butler,her "rock "and so on and so on.
Diana may well have cared very deeply about AIDs and Landmines though apparently she’s never expressed any interest in the topics before OR it could have been just another attempt to embarass the Windsors in her long standing hate campaign.
Inever said that all people who liked Di were loonies ,a friend of mine who met her liked her a lot and shes quite sane .
But there are a great many people whos admiration for Di crosses the "not quite sane "perimeter ,claiming undying love for someone who they didn’t actually know and I’ve read posts from people who pray TO Diana.
Then theres the conspiracy theories.
Nothing like a pretty face to get all of the nutters out of the woodwork.
I think the Queen has stayed on longer then needed to let all the lies and the shit stirring by the Diana loonies be exposed for what they are over the course of time so that Charlie and Camilla can get on with the job without all the poison spread about dragging them down.
As to people emigrating unasked to our country and then expecting us to change our culture to suit them I’m not even going to bother arguing about it.
Oooops! :o
Sorry Duchess - I did indeed mean Princess Michael of Kent.
(All these Royals, many just trading on their titiles - so hard to tell them apart :smack: )
I don’t consider past standards to be relvant today. No doubt past Monarchs have committed murder, rape, adultery, stolen vast sums of money and owned slaves.
Would you accept a current Monarch behaving like this?
I’d thought those rumors that Diana was murdered were simply tabloid trash. Now that the extent of her evil has been revealed, I can understand why Defenders of the Realm may have been inspired to do her in.
(Poor thing–she hadn’t studied enough history to realize that the Wedding of the Century was a Business Arrangement. Her duty was simply to supply an Heir & a Spare. Then take lovers discreetly while Chuck went back to Camilla–whom he’d rejected as a wife because she wasn’t a Certified Virgin.)
Didn’t most of those “unasked” emigrants come from countries once part of the Empire? Did their ancestors “ask” to be invaded & conquered? Yet, you look down on them because they’ve come home to Mother England. If they are legal immigrants–or born in the UK–looks as though you’re stuck with them. And I doubt they’re your only countrymen who don’t love the idea of Royalty.
As an American, I think your Royals are cute. Good tabloid fodder–yet utterly powerless. Thus, safe to laugh at!
True, but it doesn’t forbid the Queen’s consort from being styled “King” (as opposed to Prince/Infante). It’s just not automatic like it is with the King’s consort. Barring some tragedy this won’t become an issue for several decades when Infanta Leonor ascends the throne.
While many if not most past British kings have commited adultery and had mistresses (often giving peerages to them and the resulting bastards) only two have tried to marry their mistresses, Henry VIII and Edward VIII. Henry had to jump through hoops and to essentially found his own church to do it. In more modern times Edward had to give up his throne. It does seem odd that Charles is going to head the same church that wouldn’t allow him to remarry in it.
Is there any serious talk about her retiring from being Queen? Is there a precedent for that sort of thing?
No, the Queen is serious Monarch - she won’t abdicate. If she becomes very infirm it’s possible that Charles could act as regent. This usually happens if the monarch is a minor, but Richard Plantaganet acted as regent when his cousin Henry VI was incapacitated.
None that I can think of. If she went harpic like George III we might see another Regency, but Charles still wouldn’t be King until she croaked.
Not in the UK, but Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands eventually abdicated in favour of her daughter Juliana, and Juliana did the same in favour of her daughter Beatrix. (It’s gotten to be a bit of a tradition down there, and no doubt Beatrix will do it too by and by.)
As pointed out though, Elizabeth has no intention of abdicating – apparently because she remembered what a nightmare it was for her family when her uncle Edward VIII abdicated. I hear she feels the unexpected stress of monarchy put her father into an early grave.
Hardly for decades. It was Royal pressure that separate Charles from Camilla when they were young and pushed him to marry Diana.
Yes, that was the tragedy - she was too young and ill educated to realise what she was getting in to. My understanding is it wasn’t Charles’ choice to reject Camilla at this time - it was family pressure, from his Mother, the boss of the family business, the head of his religion, and the Head of State. Charles had had duty and doing the right thing drummed into him throughout his childhood and went along with it but all the vibes in those early interviews before the marriage scream he wasn’t really convinced.
Of course, Her Maj is driven by the same sense of duty and for that reason I’m sure she wouldn’t consider abdicating. Clearly its a dirty word in the Family since Edward VIII walked out in ‘36 but there is also the Queen’s strong religious feelings. From what I’ve read she takes her Coronation oath very seriously and doesn’t believe she is entitled to step aside for her own - or Charles’ - convienience.
On the Charles and Diana marriage, adultery, split, divorce, etc. - I have always thought it was pretty stupid trying to aportion fault and blame in somebody else’s marriage! Clearly neither were saints but on the whole I’ve got more sympathy for Charles than Diana. Many of the same views as **Lust4Life ** - although maybe I wouldn’t have expressed them in quite the same way 
- but some of it might be a personal prejudice against her affected style of answering questions with her head down but looking up through her lashes. “Poor helpless little me.”
I also loath the postumous sainthood and the wildy extravagant mourning when she died. Call me an up-tight old Brit but to see the mass hysteria from millions who had never met her left an unpleasant taste. Okay, she did some good things, particularly with reducing the isolation of AIDS sufferers, but she was hardly devoting her every waking hour to helping the poor and helpless. Check out her schedule in the two months before she died. In those two months she spent two days visiting Bosnia for her landmine charity and 35 on various holidays - only 14 of them with her sons to whom was devoted.
Heredera Aparente.