Queen Elizabeth II grants Camilla new honor

Status
Not open for further replies.

NY Yankee

On Moderation
Joined
26 Mar 2012
Messages
487
Location
New York City
LONDON (AP) — Queen Elizabeth II has appointed the Duchess of Cornwall to the highest female rank in the Royal Victorian Order, Buckingham Palace said Monday.

The announcement that Camilla has been made a Dame Grand Cross comes on the day of her seventh wedding anniversary with Prince Charles, the queen's son.

[Related: Charles & Camilla's adorable Christmas card]

Awards under the Royal Victorian Order, which was founded in 1896 by Queen Victoria, are given by the queen to people who have served her or the monarchy in a personal way. They are bestowed independently of the prime minister's office.

Once vilified as a the old flame who poisoned Charles' first marriage to Princess Diana, Camilla has become an integral member of the royal family since she married the prince on April 9, 2005 — eight years after Diana's death.

Since the couple's civil ceremony at the Guildhall in Windsor, the British public has warmed to Camilla and the 64-year-old has carried out hundreds of royal engagements and taken on a wide range of patronages.

She also has traveled extensively with the prince on official visits, including a recent tour of Scandinavia with stops in Copenhagen, Stockholm and Oslo.

Lately, Camilla was seen stepping out with the queen and the former Kate Middleton — who married Prince William — for an appearance in London.

Buckingham Palace said Camilla will be invested with the insignia of her rank at a later date.

http://news.yahoo.com/queen-elizabeth-ii-grants-camilla-honor-230243134.html

I'm not that familiar with British royalty. I remember Princess Diana. I think her death was a conspiracy because she was dating someone from the Middle East. As far as Camilla, she won't be winning a swimsuit competition anytime soon. Does the Queen have any actual power or is that just an honorary title? Last year, there was the royal wedding. There are rumors that Kate Middleton is pregnant. I personally think that her little sister is sexier.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

MidnightFlyer

Veteran Member
Joined
16 May 2010
Messages
12,846
I wouldn't wish to live under any system than a monarchy; regardless of how much power Her Majesty now holds.

I remember Princess Diana. I think her death was a conspiracy because she was dating someone from the Middle East.

Her death was a tragedy, but I have never seen compelling enough evidence to convince me that any member of the royal family was involved; it all seems hyperbole.

NY Yankee said:
Last year, there was the royal wedding. There are rumors that Kate Middleton is pregnant. I personally think that her little sister is sexier.

No. Kate Middleton is way more attractive, I can't see what everyone sees in the sister's rear, never mind the rest of her.
 

Schnellzug

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2011
Messages
2,926
Location
Evercreech Junction
I wouldn't wish to live under any system than a monarchy; regardless of how much power Her Majesty now holds.
.

I do agree, actually; I don't think anyone's yet been able to come up with any convincing argument why an elected head of state would be in any way better (and not just "The Royals cost so much money!"). With a President, it'd either be just the same as the Prime Minister we currently have just with a different job title, or a figurehead with no actual power, like in Ireland. And what would be the point of that?
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
I wouldn't wish to live under any system than a monarchy; regardless of how much power Her Majesty now holds.

I agree. I find it hard to imagine serving under a commander in chief who you don't like and voted against.

Her death was a tragedy, but I have never seen compelling enough evidence to convince me that any member of the royal family was involved; it all seems hyperbole.

And the fact that it was supposedly organised by Prince Philip is the big problem with that one!

No. Kate Middleton is way more attractive, I can't see what everyone sees in the sister's rear, never mind the rest of her.

I'm not going to say the obvious. ;)

No comment.
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
5,822
I do agree, actually; I don't think anyone's yet been able to come up with any convincing argument why an elected head of state would be in any way better (and not just "The Royals cost so much money!").

And of course, for example, the French Presidency costs more than our Royals.

 

Butts

Established Member
Joined
16 Jan 2011
Messages
9,276
Plus even if Scotland becomes Independent The Queen is being kept as Head of State:p
 

Schnellzug

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2011
Messages
2,926
Location
Evercreech Junction
I think there's still someone who claims to be the rightful descendant of Bonnie Prince Charlie and therefore the rightful king of Scotland, and probably England as well, isn't there. Maybe that's the position Alex is hoping for.
 

Bungle73

On Moderation
Joined
19 Aug 2011
Messages
2,583
Location
Kent
I think there's still someone who claims to be the rightful descendant of Bonnie Prince Charlie and therefore the rightful king of Scotland, and probably England as well, isn't there. Maybe that's the position Alex is hoping for.

There was some programme on a while ago with Tony Robinson that was along those sort of lines. I can't remember the details but the gist was that the proper line wasn't followed hundreds of years ago and the present Queen shouldn't really be Queen. The person who should be monarch (according to this programme) is some guy living in Australia, who's actually a republican.

As for Diana, it was car accident, pure and simple, caused by a drunk driver and excessive speed.
 

DaveNewcastle

Established Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
21 Dec 2007
Messages
7,397
Location
Newcastle (unless I'm out)
I really don't think I know what all this means:-
"Queen Elizabeth II has appointed the Duchess of Cornwall to the highest female rank in the Royal Victorian Order . . . . Camilla has been made a Dame Grand Cross".

Did someone get a free pass on the Victoria Line? Their own toilets at Kings Cross? Some Grand Central train is named "Duchess of Cornwall"? Is "the highest female rank" higher or lower than "Station Manager"?

Does this 'news' actually affect anybody?
 

DelayRepay

Established Member
Joined
21 May 2011
Messages
1,215
I really don't think I know what all this means:-
"Queen Elizabeth II has appointed the Duchess of Cornwall to the highest female rank in the Royal Victorian Order . . . . Camilla has been made a Dame Grand Cross".

Did someone get a free pass on the Victoria Line? Their own toilets at Kings Cross? Some Grand Central train is named "Duchess of Cornwall"? Is "the highest female rank" higher or lower than "Station Manager"?

Does this 'news' actually affect anybody?

It simply means she gets first dibs on any spare toast when travelling in first class with East Coast.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
26,640
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
Great Britain...United Kingdom...call it what you will... seems to be "fair game" for European monarchies to assume ruling family status. George V during the First World War decided it would be sensible to change the name of the existing Germanic House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to the House of Windsor. There had been a successive line of Germanic monarchs prior to that. The seventeenth century saw the Royal Dutch House of Orange-Nassau assume monarchical duties.

Which might be the next European monarchy to decide it was "their turn" to have a go.....:roll:
 

Bungle73

On Moderation
Joined
19 Aug 2011
Messages
2,583
Location
Kent
Great Britain...United Kingdom...call it what you will... seems to be "fair game" for European monarchies to assume ruling family status. George V during the First World War decided it would be sensible to change the name of the existing Germanic House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to the House of Windsor. There had been a successive line of Germanic monarchs prior to that. The seventeenth century saw the Royal Dutch House of Orange-Nassau assume monarchical duties.

Which might be the next European monarchy to decide it was "their turn" to have a go.....:roll:

Great Britain and the United Kingdom are different things.
 

Bungle73

On Moderation
Joined
19 Aug 2011
Messages
2,583
Location
Kent
I'm confused. I always thought that Great Britain, England, and United Kingdom referred to the same thing.

No. Great Britain is the island made up of the countries of Scotland, England and Wales. The United Kingdom is Great Britain plus Northern Ireland.

If you want to **** off a Welsh or Scotsman say to them "Where abouts in England do you come from". :lol:
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
22,663
Location
Redcar
I'm confused. I always thought that Great Britain, England, and United Kingdom referred to the same thing.

As Bungle73 mentioned they really aren't at all the same thing (forgive me but it's quite annoying to hear England used when someone means the UK, it would be somewhat similar to talking about Texas when one is really talking about the entire US). Anyway I think this video does a pretty good job of explaining the situation:

[youtube]rNu8XDBSn10[/youtube]
 

Butts

Established Member
Joined
16 Jan 2011
Messages
9,276
It simply means she gets first dibs on any spare toast when travelling in first class with East Coast.

Thats as rare as hens teeth :p
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I'm confused. I always thought that Great Britain, England, and United Kingdom referred to the same thing.

Your in good company a lot of people in England hold similar misconceived views ( but not all Englishmen to be fair)
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
Great Britain...United Kingdom...call it what you will... seems to be "fair game" for European monarchies to assume ruling family status. George V during the First World War decided it would be sensible to change the name of the existing Germanic House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to the House of Windsor. There had been a successive line of Germanic monarchs prior to that. The seventeenth century saw the Royal Dutch House of Orange-Nassau assume monarchical duties.

Which might be the next European monarchy to decide it was "their turn" to have a go.....:roll:

Substitue "England" for that and you can add the House of Stuart and the House of Normandy! Technically, it ought to be the House of Mountbatten now, but as that's Battenburg translated into English, then we're really no different.
 

Schnellzug

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2011
Messages
2,926
Location
Evercreech Junction
As I said...call it what you like...:roll:

The point that I was making concerned European monarchies deciding that their particular "House" could be the ruler over here. No-one has decided to answer the main point that I was making.

It did seem rather as if there was a "Rent-a-Royal" business going on in days of yore; you don't like the Stuarts? Give the House of Orange a call, they can provide you with a king for very reasonable rates! Embarassed that you're now at war with your cousin? No worries, change your name and no one will remember that!
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
It did seem rather as if there was a "Rent-a-Royal" business going on in days of yore; you don't like the Stuarts? Give the House of Orange a call, they can provide you with a king for very reasonable rates! Embarassed that you're now at war with your cousin? No worries, change your name and no one will remember that!

Something like this event in the First Barons' War?
 

DaveNewcastle

Established Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
21 Dec 2007
Messages
7,397
Location
Newcastle (unless I'm out)
"Rent-a-Royal"
A strategic marriage could sometimes be cheaper.
Also, spouses could be disposed of at negligible cost whenever the alliance was no longer politically convenient.
Alternatively, adoption by the Church of the Moment has been a handy expedient. (Also inexpensive).

Wars and honouring legal obligations can be such unnecessary expenses for a monarch. There's usually better things to buy with their citizen's lovingly-given taxes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top