Please read here on how to use images on RoyalDish. - Please read the RoyalDish message on board purpose and rules.
Images containing full nudity or sexual activities are strongly forbidden on RoyalDish.


Pages: 1 ... 60 61 [62]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Charles and Camilla news and photos II  (Read 161651 times)
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
LadyCate

Warned
Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 280

Offline Offline

Posts: 945





Ignore
« Reply #915 on: March 20, 2017, 06:17:37 AM »

she should be Queen consort - but there is an element of sexism going on - the male consort is never called "king" - Phillip of course being "Prince" or Duke of Edinborough.  So either allow the male consort to be called "King" or make the female consort "Princess"
Logged
MidnightDiamond

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 380

Online Online

Posts: 3845





Ignore
« Reply #916 on: March 20, 2017, 06:22:54 AM »

I always wanted it to be King Consort and Queen Consort. Due to if it became Prince/Princess Consort it would seem like the reason is because King is still higher than Queen and they refused King Consort and just lowered the wife of a King instead of raising the husband of a Queen.
Logged
Margaret

Large Member
******

Reputation: 431

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 1274





Ignore
« Reply #917 on: March 20, 2017, 09:28:22 AM »

I always wanted it to be King Consort and Queen Consort. Due to if it became Prince/Princess Consort it would seem like the reason is because King is still higher than Queen and they refused King Consort and just lowered the wife of a King instead of raising the husband of a Queen.

It's going to be a problem as long as there are gender-specific titles for the male and female monarch.  This is all a legacy of the common law position that a married woman had no separate legal identity, and was merely a part of her husband, and a hangover from a time when women were regarded as inferior to men and could not vote and were deemed to require the protection and "ownership" of the - male - head of the family. 
Logged
emtishell

Small Member
****

Reputation: 107

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 480





Ignore
« Reply #918 on: March 20, 2017, 12:40:33 PM »

she should be Queen consort - but there is an element of sexism going on - the male consort is never called "king" - Phillip of course being "Prince" or Duke of Edinborough.  So either allow the male consort to be called "King" or make the female consort "Princess"

Except Philip is a Prince in his own right, not due to his marriage.
Logged
Lady Alice

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 1070

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 3530





Ignore
« Reply #919 on: March 20, 2017, 04:48:31 PM »

she should be Queen consort - but there is an element of sexism going on - the male consort is never called "king" - Phillip of course being "Prince" or Duke of Edinborough.  So either allow the male consort to be called "King" or make the female consort "Princess"

Except Philip is a Prince in his own right, not due to his marriage.

Actually, he had to be recreated a prince of the UK after he gave up his Greek title and succession rights prior to his marriage, thanks to the Beaverbrook-led xenophobia.
Logged

NoviceDisher

Small Member
****

Reputation: 119

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 482





Ignore
« Reply #920 on: March 20, 2017, 10:27:22 PM »

I guess it's easy to stick to the tabloid-version of monarchies when you don't live in one which would explain why C&C don't appeal to many - unless you actually follow the BRF for a bit and see that unlike W&K they actually work quite a bit. I think that's why many have come to accept Camillia at least.

When mainstream channels in the US, for instance CBS is planning a Prime Time special anchored by Oprah buddy Gayle for two hours to commemorate Princess Di's life and legacy it does become more than the tabloid version of the BRF IMO. Princess Di is like Marilyn Monroe or JFK. She will always be idealized vs reality because of dying young and tragic even if she was flawed. But she was the innocent victim in this sad triangle. She was the young bride who was made a virgin sacrifice to appease the POW and the BRF who wanted heirs, a POW who was spineless not to stand up for the love of his life and made her his mistress. While the mistress enabled it and chose another innocent victim in her husband. This might have worked in the court of yore but not in the modern age where monarchy is no longer revered or even thought of as necessary.

Prince Charles may do all the work he can assisted by the Duchess and they do good work but they are also these people who because of their choices to be together brought 2 innocent people and 4 children into it and their lives were impacted to various degrees because of it. It's not the tabloid version of the monarchy, it is reality. You cannot work it away especially if you are to be the head of the church of England.  Princess Diana will always be the shadow that hangs on the BRF and consequently protects her sons especially the elder from his antics. What will break this is if William was shown to be actively cheating on Kate. No mere dancing or holding a waist. But an actual proven affair. But Kate is no Princess Diana, she will not call the media and so the BRF is safe while Prince Charles will always be the man who cheated on his beautiful wife in the eyes of the public in not just Britain but in many parts of the world. It is what it is. Charles and Camilla did get married eventually so I hope they are finally happy for the price many people paid for that happiness is quite a bit. 
Logged
Ellie

Big Member
*******

Reputation: 440

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1707





Ignore
« Reply #921 on: March 20, 2017, 10:59:05 PM »

And Diana ruined marriages by cheating on Charles with married men, herself.

This has been hashed and rehashed over and over. People will always hate the man because of Diana's Panorama interview and the War of the Waleses, and the US's obsession with Diana which does not abate and I do not understand why. Undoubtedly, it will be Diana the Saint vs Charles the Devil, the innocent virgin lady versus the evil mean ol' Prince who wanted to ruin her life, how HM and Philip hated her, blah-blah-blah... It is sad that is more her legacy than her actual charity work with HIV/AIDS and the Halo Trust, both which were amazing things she did in the world.

It has been 20 years. It doesn't affect anybody but the motherless William and Harry, like so many in this world who lose their parents young. The American media will never stop harping on this dead horse that's been flogged straight for so long it's decomposed and has maggots.
Logged
Maria
Administrator
Most Exalted Member
************

Reputation: 3149

Offline Offline

Posts: 17195




« Reply #922 on: March 20, 2017, 11:18:12 PM »

Aaand the thread turned O/T. We will NOT host any debate about the War of the Wales'. Back to topic!
Logged
Ellie

Big Member
*******

Reputation: 440

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1707





Ignore
« Reply #923 on: March 21, 2017, 12:01:19 AM »

Sorry Maria!!!

Looks like this week Charles will be visiting Lancashire and Yorkshire. Wonder if it will get any press? I wonder how much of a hassle it is for these areas to put on these royal visits, and is it worth it? Some stuff seems neat, encouraging education and taking care of your personal environs.
Logged
SpittingImage

Micro Member
**

Reputation: 28

Offline Offline

Canada Canada

Posts: 112





Ignore
« Reply #924 on: March 21, 2017, 05:11:22 PM »

Sorry Maria!!!

Looks like this week Charles will be visiting Lancashire and Yorkshire. Wonder if it will get any press? I wonder how much of a hassle it is for these areas to put on these royal visits, and is it worth it? Some stuff seems neat, encouraging education and taking care of your personal environs.

http://www.dailymail.co.u...-festival-Lancashire.html
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 60 61 [62]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: