“One’s valet always gets a couple of flunkies to carry One’s bags – so what do you think this trolley affair is used for?”
Wrong track
“One’s valet always gets a couple of flunkies to carry One’s bags – so what do you think this trolley affair is used for?”
Boadicea's Chariot 
Hogwarts express. That’s where he got the ears!
For serious royalists, the latest in Denmark is that the ever-self-obsessed consort, Prince Henrik, now claims that if a commoner like Tasmanian Mary can marry the Crown Prince and become Crown Princess, he himself should have been able to marry the Crown Princess (now Queen) and become King.
‘So?’ you say. Well the same is perhaps an issue for the Windsors. Camilla might use the same argument about her eventual Queenship! 🙂
But Camilla will become queen, whether she wants to or not and whatever she wants to call herself.
So the English tradition is based on the idea that a King’s consort will be Queen, willy nilly, because she is a chattel, incapable of assuming power herself; while a Queen cannot be allowed a King in case he gets above himself (and her)? Sounds suitably feudal to me.
There is a difference between a queen consort and a queen regnant. The queen consort derives her position through her marriage to the king, the queen regnant holds the position through her own right.
There is no distinction between types of kingship. One, by virtue of being king, is king regnant.
As such, the husband of a queen regnant will never be more than prince-consort while the wife of a king regnant will with few exceptions be queen consort. It’s not perfect, but it has survived centuries and it works.
Or you could just have a petty dictator using emergency powers because he can’t get his way absolutely to create laws without parliamentary approval, but that’s in a republic so it must be okay.
Christopher, good evening.
Are you sure about this? I refer you to King Philip of England and Ireland created by an Act of Parliament which stipulated that he would only able to enjoy that title whilst his wife, Bloody Mary. lived. That sounds like a King Consort to me.
Meanwhile, back in bonny Jockland, Queen Mary married Henry Darnley who was then proclaimed King of the Scots by Act of Parliament. Still only a King Consort.
Fast forward to yet another Mary and the blessed William III. She had the better claim to the throne and was undoubtedly the Queen Regnant (Protestant-wise) but he put his clog down and insisted of joint tenure of the top spot which both the English and Scottish Parliaments accepted.
Victoria certainly wanted Albert to be King Consort but her advisers advised her that Parliament would not wear it so she settled for Prince Consort. Philip wasn’t even given that title because there was a feeling that the people and therefore Parliament would not be happy about it given his Hun.sisters etc. So he only got the Chookie Embra title when he married. He had to wait until 1957 to become a Prince of the United Kingdom. and is still a mere consort (non-Prince variety)..
The common link here, of course, is that we have this proud unwritten constitutional history which allows us to make it up as we go along without any need to be consistent or bound by too much precedent,
Mind, I suppose there could be an appeal these days to the Court of Human Rights if the spousal unit of a Royal felt hard done by.
Mackie: yes, you are correct. There have been
kings consort, but they have only existed with special dispensations
from parliament. Generally speaking, as Victoria realised,
the husband of a queen regnant becomes the prince-consort.
Queen Anne’s George of Denmark was also merely prince regent.
William III was a co-ruler, thus a king regnant — again with the permission
of parliament. This goes to show, though, that a monarchy is still far more
flexible than a republic.
Christopher,
I am sure that my good friend from the wrong side of Scotland can look out for himself though he is probably too nice a guy to bring this to your attention. I’ve noticed that you have addressed him as Mackie on many occasions. I’m sure you don’t mean any harm though it is more courteous to use the Christian name or put a mister before the surname.
Agreed,Christopher,
One of my main reasons for replying to your comment.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am a bit of a fan of constitutional monarchy, particularly the British version thereof.
Haw JW. It’s our own fault on the (allegedly) ‘wrong side of Scotland’ .
As you know fine well, us Embrans often use surnames as Christian names. Logan, Sinclair, Keith, Boyd, Campbell, Wallace, Stewart, Maxwell and so on and so forth;
To be fair, I’ve never met a Christian name Mackie to date but I live in hope.
TR: blame it on my being a Hun. We have a tendency to refer to people we are moderately acquainted with by their surnames without any titles. I am also accustomed to being called by the Japanese rendering of my surname.
An tUasal Mackie: as am I. People forget that there is a great deal of instability associated with republics, that there is a lack of continuity and that no position in the land is above petty partisan bickering.
Mr Royalist, you are a scholar and a left-centred gent indeed! But might I point out that the other self-proclaimed royalists here seem to think that a mere gadfly like Backside is a republican, simply because he questions the behaviour of the incumbent monarchs and their kin.
I would add (as my philosophy tutor oft remarked) that one needs to be sure those are the only possibilities. What about a better monarchy?
(signed) Janus Esq.
Christopher, you may be right, but have you wondered how they became republics in the first place? Unfair feudal preceded them all.
Two things. Firstly, I note the pejorative term that Mr Mackie ascribes to the last Catholic monarch of a Catholic England while other monarchs of dubious behaviour receive glowing epithets, especially if they happen to be of the Scottish persuasion, regardless of which side of the railway tracks they happen to have originated. Although King Henry was not mentioned in his comment, he is generally referred to by those of a Protestant disposition as Bluff King Hal, where as in fact a more appropriate sobriquet might be ‘Genocidal Ba**ard Henry’ seeing as he was responsible for the deaths of about 75,000 of his subjects, or about 2.5% of the population at the time. Protestant prejudices take a long time to die. Of course I am thrilled to hear the calls for the body of King Richard III to receive a Catholic burial.
Secondly, amidst all this talk of consorts, there has been no mention of morganatic marriages. As far as I am aware, the Prince of Wales did not enter into such an arrangement with the Duchess although there is a precedent in European Royal marriages. The very late-lamented (possibly for the wrong reasons) Archduke Franz-Ferdinand had a morganatic marriage to Sophie Duchess of Hohenberg, a matter which caused considerable bitterness and infighting amongst royalty and politicians and which possibly, though probably very indirectly, as some would have it, led to his assassination and ultimately the start of WWI.
The fact that the Prince did not choose such a route indicates that it was never his intention form Camilla not to be queen. I suggest.
Camilla wouldn’t let him, would she?
“What about a better monarchy?” We gave you Sassenachs a better monarchy, Janus Esq, and what did you do with it? Got rid of it and imported some Dutch and Germans.
Sipu, morganatic marriage does not exist in the UK. Edward VIII wanted this for himself and Wallis Simpson, but this would have required a special Act of Parliament and the government didn’t feel this was on since it would still have come down to him marrying a divorced woman. So Charles could never have chosen this option.
Janus, you have an odd idea of Camilla’s power. All this Duchess of Cornwall stuff was merely to play down the fact that that she had (sob!) taken Diana’s place. But the Diana fanatics seem to be seeing sense or dying out, so there is no reason for things not to take their natural course.
Sheona, you may be right about Camilla – or not. 🙂 The inside trackers reported that her Queenship was ‘in recognition of her ‘loyalty over the Diana ‘accident’ or in other words – blackmail!
Thanks Sheona. But as you say, a morganatic marriage for Edward and Mrs S, was considered. Baldwin discussed with Dominion leaders, but they rejected the idea. It may have required an act of Parliament, but that does not mean it could not have happened in either case. According to Wiki, under the constitution Camilla will be Queen, though ‘by custom’ she will be not addressed as such. I am with you on the Diana front and believe she will eventually be fully accepted and rightly so.
Janus, I never took you for a conspiracy theorist or is your smiley face in the wrong place? Blackmail is such an ugly word.
Janus: you’re not comparing similar institutions. There is a difference between a constitutional monarchy
that respects its role in society such as the House of Oranje-Nassau in the Netherlands, the Windsors, or the Yamato and “feudal” monarchies of old. Have you ever considered why France is on its fifth republic, why Italy has hardly had a government survive its entire term since the establishment of the Italian Republic, why Portugal isn’t politically the most functional, why Cuba has been run by the same clique since 1959, why North Korea has its third Kim in a row, etc.? For that matter, have you wondered why the US is sliding into Argentine-style implosion? All republics and hardly unproblematic.
Cor, Janus, how do you know these “inside trackers”?
Ah, well, one of my clan is closely connected to the Italian royals – very much so, in fact!
Christopher, any rational analysis of the general behaviour of the Windsors will reveal that their attitudes are still feudal. A little improvement wouldn’t hurt their reputation.
Janus: “rational”? By that you mean one that you would agree with. You will always think the worst of any monarch or monarchy because you simply don’t like the idea. Having lived in republics and knowing exactly how they work I am even more unimpressed with what you advocate.
Christopher, as an academic you know the value of ‘rigour’ – so if you read my royal archive you’ll see that I don’t dislike the idea of monarchy or favour republicanism. I poke fun at ridiculous exponents of both – from Big Ears to Sarko. What I strongly advocate is that the elected and unelected behave responisibly. Is that not rational?
Janus: if that is the case (and I do not consider you to be a liar) then perhaps many of us have
misinterpreted your comments consistently. Thank you for that clarification.
I really should not say anything before my second cuppa… Please allow me to clarify the previous comment.
I do not doubt your honesty and accept your explanation without reservation. Perhaps it might help if you were clearer at times with your comments. Many of us have misinterpreted your points consistently.
Oops, got ahead of myself there. So the Windsors’ attitudes are still feudal? Droit de seigneur, summary justice, Domesday Book to tax every sheep and cow, land grants to stroppy barons? Think feudal is the wrong adjective, especially for HM.
Sipu, good evening.
I know this will probably go pear-shaped but just so you know.
Janus and you will clearly never have a magic moment when you melt together into a warm and fuzzy miasma of total togetherness. All of us here come to the Chariot from different directions. The two of you often seem to me to be determined to have a high speed and head-on collision on a single track road.
You both have the absolute right, of course. to do what you want to do. But, in this particular case, it’s his post and his right to delete. Them’s Boadicea’s rules and very right they are. In my opinion.
My main point is that it’s all self for me. I like relaxing here and I enjoy the banter that I get on this site from people whose views interest me and who I respect. There’s few enough of us left already and I do not relish the thought of anybody else huffing off.
Cristopher, good evening.
I am a mild-mannered sort of guy who hardly ever gets upset about anything much.
But, ‘An tUasal’? That’s Erse. and from even further West than JW and Weegieland. Aran sweater fans might understand what you were saying, of course, but may you be forgiven!
Not a native Scots Gaelic speaker but I do have a Celtic First Ordinary Pass (1970) from the University of Embra. Which means that I can count up to approximately 23 in the tongue of Auld Gaul and know that the correct address is Maighster (pronounced Mr) Mackie.
Thanks JM for pointing out my ‘rules’ so clearly – and so politely! 🙂
Camilla will be Queen Consort – whether anyone likes it or not. She may choose not to use the title, but that’s another matter entirely. Personnally, I think her behaviour has been far more ‘royal’ than her predecessor.
Good evening Unusual Mackie,
Can’t believe I’ve opened a can of worms here. Ghastly Gaelic is being given an airing. Was hoping Christopher would have began his address to you with the immortal, straight oot the Broons, Haw John. As you say this is Janus’ post and I hope he sees fit to amend your previous for the dastardly use of the c word.
And please don’t tell me you’re Murrayfielding it Tomorrow. Total waste of a day. Me, I’ve got the bleach out to do a Gazza.
Sipu, sole purpose of using said pejorative term as I thought that you might rise to the bait. It was, in truth, a cheap shot for which I apologise.
As you probably well know, I am a Presbyterian agnostic so I tend to have my preferences on one side of a religious divide where I don’t actually belong at all. We are all products of our upbringing and I still feel comfortable on the Protestant side.
Doesn’t mean that I think that Henry VIII was one of the good guys. I did history in my time and am no fan of him, particularly when it comes to the Rough Wooing and the destruction of the great Catholic Abbeys of Melrose etc. Admittedly, we would have done it ourselves twenty or so years later.
I too hope that Richard III receives a proper Catholic burial. Still think it should have been York Minster but I will visit him in Leicester in due course.
Richard III was apparently very well liked in Middleham and he himself counted the castle there as his favourite residence. Perhaps a quiet spot in the parish churchyard or in the church itself would suit him, JM.
Enjoy your day at Murrayfield and may your support have the desired effect. Mi dispiace, Italia.
Haw (alllegedy copyright the Broons) JW.
It was hard C (aka K) Celtic what I done. Janus will understand.
No, I won’t be there at Murrayfield tomorrow and thanks for treading on my sorrow. Gave my ticket away tonight due to sufficiently troublesome lack of mobility.
Will still be glued to the game and think that we will win. Forza Scozia!
goodbye
Mr Mackie. Good morning. It is raining here in Cape Town; the first we have had for some weeks and thus very welcome.
Thank you for your comments.
I understand your sentiment, vis a vis this site and sympathise with your ‘all about self’ position. I am sure it is one we all share. I would only add that I understand the law governing comment deletions, but as you know, I am not a great fan of laws; I prefer rules.
No offence taken by your remarks on Bloody Mary and certainly no need to apologise. I did rise to the bait as you anticipated, though I rather hoped that it might have been apparent that as was the case with you, my own tongue was hovering close to my cheek. I should confess that amidst my own joshing, there was an element of seriousness. Some stereotypes are more equal than others.
Best of luck at today. I hope my Zimbabwean friend is able to make a worthy contribution.
No worries as they say down under.’Tis the stuff of satire – sometimes referred to as iconoclasm.
Oh, Janus, is nothing sacred?