Discussion:
Will There Ever Be Another Princess of Wales?
(too old to reply)
David / Amicus
2005-02-13 06:50:42 UTC
Permalink
Diana brought such shame and disgrace and disgust to the title will a
future wife to the heir ever want it to have it?
Klaus Meyer-Cabri van Amelrode
2005-02-13 16:04:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by David / Amicus
Diana brought such shame and disgrace and disgust to the title will a
future wife to the heir ever want it to have it?
what a slander!! it is rather the reverse... she was a marvelous
Princess of Wales giving the monarchy and the country much what was
needed. If she would have been a disgrace why did millions went out to
mourn her?

The settlement of the title of Camilla as Duchess of Cornwall is not
motivated by her not wanting a digraced title but by respect for the
previous holder of the title and feared public out cry. I belive that
this marriage is to be saluted because at least honesty rules. Camilla
is in all but name for a long time the wife of the Prince of Wales. He
should have married her in the first place.

By the way in Belgium a arrangement like the one for Cammilla was
found for the second wife of King Leopold III whose first wife Astrid
was much loved by the Belgium people and therefore the title of Queen
was never bestowed on Liliane She was known as Princesse de Rethy.

And of course there will be a Princess of Wales in the future: the
wife of Prince William if he becomes heir apparent and the title is
granted to him.
David / Amicus
2005-02-13 20:57:57 UTC
Permalink
Diana had the morals of a dog! She counted her lovers by the score; she
slept everyone from stableboys to Arab sheikhs!
Klaus Meyer-Cabri van Amelrode
2005-02-14 07:04:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by David / Amicus
Diana had the morals of a dog! She counted her lovers by the score; she
slept everyone from stableboys to Arab sheikhs!
I hope she had fun! Your language tells so much about you... more than
any sensible argument... sad, sad, very sad
Louis Epstein
2005-02-13 22:18:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Meyer-Cabri van Amelrode
Post by David / Amicus
Diana brought such shame and disgrace and disgust to the title will a
future wife to the heir ever want it to have it?
what a slander!! it is rather the reverse... she was a marvelous
Princess of Wales giving the monarchy and the country much what was
needed. If she would have been a disgrace why did millions went out to
mourn her?
Both of your positions are caricatured extremes.

She was shamefully delinquent in her obligations to follow traditions,
but she was but a passing holder of a title that is not endangered and
will doubtless belong to future wives of Princes of Wales.
Post by Klaus Meyer-Cabri van Amelrode
The settlement of the title of Camilla as Duchess of Cornwall is not
motivated by her not wanting a digraced title but by respect for the
previous holder of the title and feared public out cry. I belive that
this marriage is to be saluted because at least honesty rules. Camilla
is in all but name for a long time the wife of the Prince of Wales. He
should have married her in the first place.
I think he should never have married either Camilla or Diana.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
David / Amicus
2005-02-14 10:35:27 UTC
Permalink
<<I think he should never have married either Camilla or Diana.>>

I certainly agree about Diana! Completely unfit and unworthy and
unqualified!

For legitimate breeding purposes royal ought to only marry royal!

Regarding Camilla - if he wants to marry his mistress that's ok. Louis
XIV married his after his wife died. Camilla should never be made
queen though because she is not royal. IMO royals are born, one can not
marry and become one. And thankfully she is too old now to have
children. The main problem with Camilla is that she is a divorcee! Bad
example!
Klaus Meyer-Cabri van Amelrode
2005-02-15 11:14:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by David / Amicus
<<I think he should never have married either Camilla or Diana.>>
I certainly agree about Diana! Completely unfit and unworthy and
unqualified!
For legitimate breeding purposes royal ought to only marry royal!
Regarding Camilla - if he wants to marry his mistress that's ok. Louis
XIV married his after his wife died. Camilla should never be made
queen though because she is not royal. IMO royals are born, one can not
marry and become one. And thankfully she is too old now to have
children. The main problem with Camilla is that she is a divorcee! Bad
example!
- not royal - neither was the late Queen Mother or the late Duchess of
Glouchester and one can hardly say a thing against these ladies. These
notions are a thing of the past. Most royals do not marry any longer
royals and the results are quite satisfying. Yesterday was an
interview with the Princess of Orange on the Dutch TV: an intelligent
and impressiv lady, well respected in the adopted country and quite an
example and inspiration ofr many. And she is all but royal born.

- divorcee! Bad example! - is the Princess Royal as well a bad example
or was Princess Margaret? What is wrong if people get divorced and
remarry? It is the law of the land that one can do that?
Graham Truesdale
2005-02-20 00:55:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by David / Amicus
<<I think he should never have married either Camilla or Diana.>>
I certainly agree about Diana! Completely unfit and unworthy and
unqualified!
For legitimate breeding purposes royal ought to only marry royal!
As I have said before, the logical consequence of your views
would be that Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was not a suitable
bride. Those views are therefore irrelevant, and may be ignored.
David / Amicus
2005-02-20 22:46:14 UTC
Permalink
<<As I have said before, the logical consequence of your views would be
that Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was not a suitable bride.>>

To be honest she really was not an appropriate choice but wasn't it
permitted at the time because it was not considered that she would ever
become queen as she was the wife of a younger son?

And when Edward VIII abdicated wasn't there talk of bypassing the Yorks
and going to the Kents because of this unequal marriage?
Gillian White
2005-02-21 01:14:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by David / Amicus
And when Edward VIII abdicated wasn't there talk of bypassing the Yorks
and going to the Kents because of this unequal marriage?
I think this suggestion (if indeed it was made) had more to do with the fact
that the Duke of Kent was considered much more capable of dealing with the
pressure and stress of being king.

Gillian
Candide
2005-02-21 09:10:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by David / Amicus
<<As I have said before, the logical consequence of your views would be
that Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was not a suitable bride.>>
To be honest she really was not an appropriate choice but wasn't it
permitted at the time because it was not considered that she would ever
become queen as she was the wife of a younger son?
That may have been an initial quip by many at court, but George V had
many second thoughts about his heir and predicted on one occasion the
Duke of York would become king and "Elizabeth" would make a "grand"
queen.
Post by David / Amicus
And when Edward VIII abdicated wasn't there talk of bypassing the Yorks
and going to the Kents because of this unequal marriage?
The marriage was no more unequal than Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn/Jane
Seymour/Catherine Parr/Katherine Howard.

Do not ever recall a strict "equal" marriage rule at any time in GB.

Candide
Jean Sue
2005-02-23 18:04:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Candide
Post by David / Amicus
<<As I have said before, the logical consequence of your views would
be
Post by David / Amicus
that Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was not a suitable bride.>>
To be honest she really was not an appropriate choice but wasn't it
permitted at the time because it was not considered that she would
ever
Post by David / Amicus
become queen as she was the wife of a younger son?
That may have been an initial quip by many at court, but George V had
many second thoughts about his heir and predicted on one occasion the
Duke of York would become king and "Elizabeth" would make a "grand"
queen.
Post by David / Amicus
And when Edward VIII abdicated wasn't there talk of bypassing the
Yorks
Post by David / Amicus
and going to the Kents because of this unequal marriage?
The marriage was no more unequal than Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn/Jane
Seymour/Catherine Parr/Katherine Howard.
Do not ever recall a strict "equal" marriage rule at any time in GB.
As I recall, there was some talk of bypassing the Yorks and putting the
Kents on the throne, but that was because of Bertie (George VI)'s stuttering
problem. Of course, the Duke of Kent had other problems.

js

Klaus Meyer-Cabri van Amelrode
2005-02-14 17:17:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Klaus Meyer-Cabri van Amelrode
Post by David / Amicus
Diana brought such shame and disgrace and disgust to the title will a
future wife to the heir ever want it to have it?
what a slander!! it is rather the reverse... she was a marvelous
Princess of Wales giving the monarchy and the country much what was
needed. If she would have been a disgrace why did millions went out to
mourn her?
Both of your positions are caricatured extremes.
She was shamefully delinquent in her obligations to follow traditions,
but she was but a passing holder of a title that is not endangered and
will doubtless belong to future wives of Princes of Wales.
Post by Klaus Meyer-Cabri van Amelrode
The settlement of the title of Camilla as Duchess of Cornwall is not
motivated by her not wanting a digraced title but by respect for the
previous holder of the title and feared public out cry. I belive that
this marriage is to be saluted because at least honesty rules. Camilla
is in all but name for a long time the wife of the Prince of Wales. He
should have married her in the first place.
I think he should never have married either Camilla or Diana.
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
you wrote:She was shamefully delinquent in her obligations to follow
traditions,

well if you define her role as such... you might be right, but i
question very much that kind of definition!! properly under this
definition she must have tolerated a royal mistress as this is royal
tradition.... suppose this is the old question: modern versus
tradition.... well at least the great monarchs were all those who
changed things and did not got stuck in tradtions
Louis Epstein
2005-02-15 05:22:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Meyer-Cabri van Amelrode
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Klaus Meyer-Cabri van Amelrode
Post by David / Amicus
Diana brought such shame and disgrace and disgust to the title will a
future wife to the heir ever want it to have it?
what a slander!! it is rather the reverse... she was a marvelous
Princess of Wales giving the monarchy and the country much what was
needed. If she would have been a disgrace why did millions went out to
mourn her?
Both of your positions are caricatured extremes.
She was shamefully delinquent in her obligations to follow traditions,
but she was but a passing holder of a title that is not endangered and
will doubtless belong to future wives of Princes of Wales.
Post by Klaus Meyer-Cabri van Amelrode
The settlement of the title of Camilla as Duchess of Cornwall is not
motivated by her not wanting a digraced title but by respect for the
previous holder of the title and feared public out cry. I belive that
this marriage is to be saluted because at least honesty rules. Camilla
is in all but name for a long time the wife of the Prince of Wales. He
should have married her in the first place.
I think he should never have married either Camilla or Diana.
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
you wrote:She was shamefully delinquent in her obligations to follow
traditions,
well if you define her role as such... you might be right, but i
question very much that kind of definition!! properly under this
definition she must have tolerated a royal mistress as this is royal
tradition.... suppose this is the old question: modern versus
tradition.... well at least the great monarchs were all those who
changed things and did not got stuck in tradtions
Those who do not fight for tradition against modernism's erosion
show lack of spine,not greatness...

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Klaus Meyer-Cabri van Amelrode
2005-02-21 10:10:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Klaus Meyer-Cabri van Amelrode
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Klaus Meyer-Cabri van Amelrode
Post by David / Amicus
Diana brought such shame and disgrace and disgust to the title will a
future wife to the heir ever want it to have it?
what a slander!! it is rather the reverse... she was a marvelous
Princess of Wales giving the monarchy and the country much what was
needed. If she would have been a disgrace why did millions went out to
mourn her?
Both of your positions are caricatured extremes.
She was shamefully delinquent in her obligations to follow traditions,
but she was but a passing holder of a title that is not endangered and
will doubtless belong to future wives of Princes of Wales.
Post by Klaus Meyer-Cabri van Amelrode
The settlement of the title of Camilla as Duchess of Cornwall is not
motivated by her not wanting a digraced title but by respect for the
previous holder of the title and feared public out cry. I belive that
this marriage is to be saluted because at least honesty rules. Camilla
is in all but name for a long time the wife of the Prince of Wales. He
should have married her in the first place.
I think he should never have married either Camilla or Diana.
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
you wrote:She was shamefully delinquent in her obligations to follow
traditions,
well if you define her role as such... you might be right, but i
question very much that kind of definition!! properly under this
definition she must have tolerated a royal mistress as this is royal
tradition.... suppose this is the old question: modern versus
tradition.... well at least the great monarchs were all those who
changed things and did not got stuck in tradtions
Those who do not fight for tradition against modernism's erosion
show lack of spine,not greatness...
so,you believe yourself to be showing greatness? .... how very pompous you are!
Post by Louis Epstein
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Michael Rhodes
2005-02-14 01:21:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by David / Amicus
Diana brought such shame and disgrace and disgust to the title will a
future wife to the heir ever want it to have it?
Camilla will become Princess of Wales on April 8 - but has chosen to be
known as the Duchess of Cornwall.

--
a***@hotmail.com
2005-02-15 07:05:31 UTC
Permalink
You're so right David/Amicus!

Just the way NO ONE would ENDURE the title of Pope after the slime and
shit John XII and Alexander VI and Pius IX brought to what had once
been a position of some dignity! No wonder it has fallen into abeyance.

I imagine no one of any honor or integrity will ever want to be
President of the U.S. in the future either.

Jean Coeur de Lapin
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...