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 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Commoners  (Read 4633 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pingo
Banned
Moderated
Micro Member
**

Reputation: 13

Offline Offline

Posts: 177





Ignore
« Reply #15 on: July 23, 2007, 06:37:56 PM »

IMO all Crwon Princes should style their commoner wives a duchess or countess only and Princess Consort instead og Queen when th etime comes.

Camilla may have set a trend  Wink
Logged
Noor76

Small Member
****

Reputation: 62

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 406





Ignore
« Reply #16 on: July 23, 2007, 08:00:23 PM »

IMO all Crwon Princes should style their commoner wives a duchess or countess only and Princess Consort instead og Queen when th etime comes.

Camilla may have set a trend  Wink

I completely agree with you.
Logged

Love is many things. It's varied. One thing it is not and can never be is unsure.
Chris

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 573

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 3964





Ignore
« Reply #17 on: July 23, 2007, 08:22:34 PM »

IMO all Crwon Princes should style their commoner wives a duchess or countess only and Princess Consort instead og Queen when th etime comes.

Camilla may have set a trend  Wink

I completely agree with you.

Good grief.  Why don't we go all the way and require those nasty commoners to be wed only in morganatic marriages?  Then the children of such marriages, with their tainted common blood,  wouldn't be able to inherit the throne.  Let's see...that would eliminate Christian, Amalia, Ingrid, Leonor, Victoria.  Maybe even Frederik and William.  Do a French count and an English lady count as royalty?  I've heard not. 
Logged
Pingo
Banned
Moderated
Micro Member
**

Reputation: 13

Offline Offline

Posts: 177





Ignore
« Reply #18 on: July 23, 2007, 08:50:17 PM »

IMO all Crwon Princes should style their commoner wives a duchess or countess only and Princess Consort instead og Queen when th etime comes.

Camilla may have set a trend  Wink

I completely agree with you.

Good grief.  Why don't we go all the way and require those nasty commoners to be wed only in morganatic marriages?  Then the children of such marriages, with their tainted common blood,  wouldn't be able to inherit the throne.  Let's see...that would eliminate Christian, Amalia, Ingrid, Leonor, Victoria.  Maybe even Frederik and William.  Do a French count and an English lady count as royalty?  I've heard not. 

No... Ime  not suggesting morganatic alliances , I just feel that the title of "Queen" should be reserved for a queen regnant.
And, also if you look at Diana's ancestry, you will she has plenty of royal blood.
Logged
fairy

Most Exalted Member
*

Reputation: 4270

Offline Offline

Posts: 19204





Ignore
« Reply #19 on: July 23, 2007, 09:01:33 PM »

I actually agree with you Pingo.
I don't think that commoners taint the royal bloodline.
But since the husbands of reigning Queens are styled "Prince consort" why shouldn't the women follow suit?
I am hoping that the Netherlands will in deed follow their new law and style Maxima a Princess consort instead of a queen. However I am not sure if they will actually do that when the time comes. Lets wait and see.
Logged

Mary's life motto:
"if I had the choice between world peace and a Prada handbag, I'd choose the latter one" Marian Keyes.
Maria
Administrator
Most Exalted Member
************

Reputation: 4074

Offline Offline

Posts: 21275




« Reply #20 on: July 23, 2007, 09:08:53 PM »

I also agree with Pingo Wink
Logged
Chris

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 573

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 3964





Ignore
« Reply #21 on: July 23, 2007, 09:09:48 PM »

IMO all Crwon Princes should style their commoner wives a duchess or countess only and Princess Consort instead og Queen when th etime comes.

Camilla may have set a trend  Wink

I completely agree with you.

Good grief.  Why don't we go all the way and require those nasty commoners to be wed only in morganatic marriages?  Then the children of such marriages, with their tainted common blood,  wouldn't be able to inherit the throne.  Let's see...that would eliminate Christian, Amalia, Ingrid, Leonor, Victoria.  Maybe even Frederik and William.  Do a French count and an English lady count as royalty?  I've heard not. 

No... Ime  not suggesting morganatic alliances , I just feel that the title of "Queen" should be reserved for a queen regnant.
And, also if you look at Diana's ancestry, you will she has plenty of royal blood.

Oh.  I misunderstood you.  I thought you were saying only women of royal blood should be titled queen.  I agree with you that "queen consort" should be done away with.  After all, there's no "king consort".

Diana, on the other hand, was not considered royal.  She was the daughter of an earl and as such was a member of the aristocracy.  But not royal, even though she was descended on the wrong side of the blanket from royalty.  
Logged
Pingo
Banned
Moderated
Micro Member
**

Reputation: 13

Offline Offline

Posts: 177





Ignore
« Reply #22 on: July 23, 2007, 09:13:06 PM »

IMO all Crwon Princes should style their commoner wives a duchess or countess only and Princess Consort instead og Queen when th etime comes.

Camilla may have set a trend  Wink

I completely agree with you.

Good grief.  Why don't we go all the way and require those nasty commoners to be wed only in morganatic marriages?  Then the children of such marriages, with their tainted common blood,  wouldn't be able to inherit the throne.  Let's see...that would eliminate Christian, Amalia, Ingrid, Leonor, Victoria.  Maybe even Frederik and William.  Do a French count and an English lady count as royalty?  I've heard not. 

No... Ime  not suggesting morganatic alliances , I just feel that the title of "Queen" should be reserved for a queen regnant.
And, also if you look at Diana's ancestry, you will she has plenty of royal blood.

Oh.  I misunderstood you.  I thought you were saying only women of royal blood should be titled queen.  I agree with you that "queen consort" should be done away with.  After all, there's no "king consort".

Diana, on the other hand, was not considered royal.  She was the daughter of an earl and as such was a member of the aristocracy.  But not royal, even though she was descended on the wrong side of the blanket from royalty.  
wrong side of the blanket indeed  Blush but  even if still alive, I dont feel should should accorded the title of "queen" either Wink
Logged
Piper

Big Member
*******

Reputation: 206

Offline Offline

Posts: 1613





Ignore
« Reply #23 on: July 23, 2007, 09:17:57 PM »

Most of the times the media gets it wrong whenever they address a royal. So even if Maxima, for example, becomes plain Princess Maxima when WA becomes King Willem-Alexander, I am sure they will print her name as Queen Maxima and then it will snowballed to that name as people reads the story. Kind of domino effect. And then people will start addressing her as Queen Maxima.

Diana was known in the royal court as Diana, Princess of Wales. But we hardly hear or see her being called this. She is almost always called Princess Diana.
Logged
Ugly Betty

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 700

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 4020





Ignore
« Reply #24 on: July 23, 2007, 09:20:49 PM »

IMO all Crwon Princes should style their commoner wives a duchess or countess only and Princess Consort instead og Queen when th etime comes.

Camilla may have set a trend  Wink

I completely agree with you.

Good grief.  Why don't we go all the way and require those nasty commoners to be wed only in morganatic marriages?  Then the children of such marriages, with their tainted common blood,  wouldn't be able to inherit the throne.  Let's see...that would eliminate Christian, Amalia, Ingrid, Leonor, Victoria.  Maybe even Frederik and William.  Do a French count and an English lady count as royalty?  I've heard not. 

No... Ime  not suggesting morganatic alliances , I just feel that the title of "Queen" should be reserved for a queen regnant.
And, also if you look at Diana's ancestry, you will she has plenty of royal blood.

I have always felt that a Consort and Regnant should have separate titles since their responsibilities are very different.

People with royal blood and ancestry are a dime a dozen so there is nothing special about that quality.
Logged
Pingo
Banned
Moderated
Micro Member
**

Reputation: 13

Offline Offline

Posts: 177





Ignore
« Reply #25 on: July 23, 2007, 10:19:03 PM »

IMO all Crwon Princes should style their commoner wives a duchess or countess only and Princess Consort instead og Queen when th etime comes.

Camilla may have set a trend  Wink

I completely agree with you.

Good grief.  Why don't we go all the way and require those nasty commoners to be wed only in morganatic marriages?  Then the children of such marriages, with their tainted common blood,  wouldn't be able to inherit the throne.  Let's see...that would eliminate Christian, Amalia, Ingrid, Leonor, Victoria.  Maybe even Frederik and William.  Do a French count and an English lady count as royalty?  I've heard not. 

No... Ime  not suggesting morganatic alliances , I just feel that the title of "Queen" should be reserved for a queen regnant.
And, also if you look at Diana's ancestry, you will she has plenty of royal blood.

I have always felt that a Consort and Regnant should have separate titles since their responsibilities are very different.

People with royal blood and ancestry are a dime a dozen so there is nothing special about that quality.

dont get me wrong..I never felt there was anything special about Diana....I was merely pointing out her royal ancestry albeit from the "wrong side of the blanket" !
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: