Get the feeling Charles pushing Camilla as Queen?(173 Posts)
Fine, the Queen is elderly and needs to cut back.
Fine, Charles is stepping up.
Fine, Charles is with Camilla.
However, I feel he is pushing Camilla on to us as queen and frankly with the history of the whole thing....it's just not on. Diana was far from perfect (who is) but C&C manipulation of her, from the train carriage just before the wedding to the phonecalls from Britannia during the honeymoon - no. They used her for breeding and I just think to let Camilla become Charles Queen would make a lot of people who are quite royalist lose faith. I really think that's why the poor queen has hung on so long. She is wise. Thank goodness for William and Kate.
Camilla could be some sort of consort but nothing more. Frankly I do not trust Charles at all on this.
And you didn't think this was going to happen when he married her?
Yes, of course she'll have a role at his side.
Yes of course he'll want her there, but that doesn't amount to "pushing".
HMQ will have the biggest say.
I dont have a problem with it, he`ll be King, she`ll be Queen.
Whys it a problem?
Sorry, see youve explained your reasoning.
They all married the wrong people at the start, sad for them but it happens. I really dont see a problem with her being queen, but I understood that she will be a consort rather than queen, I think.
How exactly is he pushing Camilla as Queen? I don't quite understand what it is he is supposed to be doing that is so wrong.
Also why on earth would anyone have a problem with her being Queen if Charles becomes King (which I really hope he does).
What happened to forgiving and moving on? I think everyone in the whole sorry situation needs to be given a break. OK, they misbehaved, but have more than made up for it since. I quite like both of them. Camilla has changed Charles for the better. She seems like a really nice, genuine, down to earth woman who has taken on a pretty tough role for love, having to deal with being the most hated woman in Britain. Same for Kate actually.
Maybe we should change to a system that doesn't give people status just because of who their husband or parents are?
I dont think they`ll be much protest when it happens, I think most people realise that she seems a nice woman, the diana stuff is in the past now, everyones moved on, haven`t they?
"a lot of people who are quite royalist" or a "lot of people who really liked Diana".
His Royal Highness is happy, and married to the woman he has deeply loved all of his life. I can forgive him for making mistakes and for being pushed into a marriage out of his duty to his family and his country. No one could have foreseen the weakness on both sides or the events that led to the terrible tragedy in Paris. If Diane was still alive would you feel differently?
I am a monarchist and have no problem with Camilla becoming Queen, when/if Prince Charles ascends to the throne.
I read a biography of C and C which suggested that Charles was discouraged from marrying Camilla because she wasn't a virgin when they first got together. Blame his parents.
sounds like nobody behaved particularly well, which is why Charles and Di split up. Had she had the sense to wear a seatbelt, hopefully by now she would have grown up and moved on.
Camilla is the Princess of Wales and the next Queen consort.
Well I tend to agree that Diana was used as some sort of brood mare by the Royal Family, and Charles was complicit in this. However, it was partly a problem of public attitudes at the time, where Charles was supposed to marry some untainted, suitably aristocratic gel, and there weren't many of them around.
I don't think Camilla is Princess of Wales though special.
Hilarious! Note to op: there isn't a vote!
I think as the wife of the king she should be queen no matter what. It's good that the monarchy are moving on - like the female heir rule and allowing her to be queen could be another sign of that. Queen consort seems a bit silly.
Also, she seems like a game girl - i think she'd be great to have a G&T with - and i agree with the poster who said she's been good for Charles.
Not this again. When he is king, she will be queen. Doesn't matter if they call her HRH Wobblebottom Consort, she'll be queen. That's it.
She is also Princess of Wales. He is Prince of Wales. They have chosen to not use the title. She's still it.
Although am pissing myself at poor old queenie apparently thinking, shit, better not croak yet, Charlie boy isn't popular enough...
What I don't understand is why poor old Phil couldn't have been King if a King's wife is automatically a Queen. If Phil's only a Prince why can't Camilla be only a Princess?
I don't give a toss really but I just wonder....
Grimble - Historically a King is more powerful / important than a Queen so he couldn't be king or he would trump her.
It will be strange to have a king - at least two maybe three. I think us British tend to love our Queens more as a general rule of thumb.
grimble - there's no title equivalent to Queen Consort for a king. A king by definition is the ruler whereas a queen may be either regnant or consort.
I don't think they ever will use the title queen for Camilla. I just can't see her giving a toss about it, frankly. And they know it will cause bad feeling so what's the point?
Yes, I was being mischievous as I knew that was the answer. Can't have a Queen being more important than a King can we? That would never do. A mere woman, more important than her husband. Tut tut, what is the world coming to?
But as they are rewriting stuff an' all i.e. Act of Succession to stop primogeniture (welcome to the 21st century) can't see why they can't say let's have a King consort or summat.
Yes, it would actually have been easier if they'd gender-neutralised the word King and just assigned it to any ruler, male or female. Like President. Given queen comes from a saxon word meaning 'wife' or 'woman', this seems like a weird choice for a ruling monarch.
'they used her for breeding'
that would be the monarchy. And the aristocracy. That's how it works. We don't get to choose our head of state and even if we did we wouldn't get to choose who he or she married.
Camilla seems up for it
...and yes she is still the Princess of Wales, whether she uses the title or not.
And of course she should be Queen. She is more popular than the Diana-lovers would have us all believe.
If he becomes king, she will automatically be queen. She is technically the Princess of Wales now, they just don't use the title publicly because of the whole Diana thing.
We don't get a choice. That's hereditary monarchy for you.
Assuming both Charles and Camilla outlive the Queen, Camilla will be Queen. (Queen Consort as opposed to Queen Regnant, obviously.).
If they wanted to create the title of Princess Consort (which currently doesn't exist), there was ample opportunity with the current legislation going through re female heirs and marriage to Catholics. They haven't taken that opportunity, so that says it all really.
I am not sure Camilla herself is too keen on the idea anymore. There was a newspaper article or two a few years ago saying she and Charles actually lived mostly separate lives now, with her spending lots of time with her own kids and grandchildren. She doesn't much like royal life and does some stuff to stave off overt moaning about soaking up taxpayers' money but the romance of it all had allegedly gone very much off the boil. Be careful what you wish for, I guess.
Does it matter?
What, when you get right down to it is the British Monarchy actually for other than entertainment?
Snazzy I don't believe that for a minute. I'm sure she does see a lot of her own family, but anyone can see that she and Charles are very happy together. That will be some kind of crazed Diana-worshipper having written that
Camilla will be Queen, and so she should be. William has actually paved the way by marrying Kate rather than a member of the aristocracy.
I suppose some small-minded & petty people can never get past the idea that Camilla is the 'OW' but what's that phrase 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'? The divorce rate in the UK demonstrates that many are not still with the first person they married for one reason or another. Plenty of second-time-around spouses will have been OM and OWs at some point. Why hold royalty up to a standard that is unrealistic?
Don't care about Camilla one jot... I just don't want Charles to be King! (I irrationally dislike him)
King Harry all the way.
You don't need to legislate to create the titles or styles for the consort, as they are within the gift of the monarch.
Camilla was only one of PoW's OW, btw. The airbrushing out of the other shows how 'managed' the campaign against her was at one time.
If they hadn't used her for breeding, Andrew would be king after Charles, and I don't think anyone wants that, do they!
I like camilla, I feel sorry for Charles, who was forced into the position of finding somebody 'who'd do'.
And realistically, I can't imagine Diana would have been happy staying married to Charles if there was no Camilla, so though I'm sure she had some shit years, she also had a get - out whereby she wasn't labelled a slut (cf fergie).
Whilst people might be divided on the idea of Queen Camilla I think we can all agree Queen Fergie would not have been good for the nation!
I actually think that Fergie was very poorly treated by the Royals.
I only recently realised that she was actually officially separated from Andrew at the time of the financial advisor/toe incident.
How is that any worse than the behaviour of the other royals in their marriage breakdowns?
...because they were still technically married?
plus there's not more submissive than a toe job....gads
Was the toe incident the first one? Didnt she have two dalliances? I agree the royals didnt treat her nicely - not letting her have Xmas with her children for instance. But then, how many families do get on well with the ex, especially where OM/OW are involved?
Do some of you read the Daily Express?
Dana and Charles got divorced, Charles is remarried. When he is king she should be queen. Monarch is an anachronism anyway, so why get het up about what Camilla is called. It is usual for the wife of a king to be called queen. No need to change things because of a spectre of a dead princess.
scaevola What I should have said was that it would take legislation to prevent Camilla (or any other female consort) from becoming Queen on her husband's accession. The BRF doesn't do morganatic marriage. So she would be Queen whether
the Diana nutjobs people like it or not, just as she is now Princess of Wales.
"To let Camilla become Charles Queen would make a lot of people who are quite royalist lose faith."
LONG LIVE QUEEN CAMILLA!!!!!
Personally, when the Queen dies I'd get rid of the lot of them.
Am i being really thick? Why would she be queen? Phillip's not king is he? So wouldn't Camilla just be Princess?
Pootles Don't you remember Queen Elizabeth (the Queen Mother)?
I don't think she was queen Elizabeth when she was married to the king, was she? I thought it was a courtesy title.
pootles The King's wife is always the Queen. Not so the other way around though!
In the UK the wife of the King is always called Queen. She is a queen consort, not a queen regnant. Surely you people have heard of Queen Mary? Queen Alexandra? Queen Charlotte (Helen Mirren in The Madness of King George)?
Men don't get the same deal. Queen victoria wanted to make Albert the King Consort, but the politicians didn't think it a good idea.
I'd be delighted if Camilla became Queen; far more so than if D had.
I;m not the only person in the UK who thinks like that either. Have no idea whether we're in the minority or not, but D died a long time ago and you have to move on. If you had known her personally, you would be over it by now and not begrudging Charles a happy life.
Camilla is his wife, and therefore should become Queen.
Anyone got a spare grip please? OP has lost hers completely.
I'm royalist but couldn't give two farts if camilla is queen. She's his wife, not queen like Elizabeth per se. If he died Wills takes over.
Liz is queen because the role description says 'do til die'. It's quite clear. I don't feel abdication is an option for her.
For someone who seems quite het up about nothing, why do u seem oblivious to these very simple but glaringly obvious items?
As for "Queen Mother", that title was a one-off which served to distinguish the dowager Queen from her daughter the reigning Queen, as they were both Queen Elizabeth.
I just don't care.
And what happened before, during and after their respective marriages is not something we can ever truly know. I'm amazed Diana's secular saint reputation has lasted so long, too. Does she evade all criticism for the Oliver Hoare stalkery (she was foul to his poor wife), the strongly rumoured King Juan Carlos affair etc and on and on because Charles was awful to her (which I agree he was)?
If Camilla is not Queen, she will be Princess Consort. Either way, her role will be the same.
I also think that if you like William and Kate, the best way to show it is to let the whole 'three of us in the marriage' thing die a death now. It's all done and dusted.
I like Camilla - she seems like a jolly good sort. If only Charles had married her first and not obeyed his father's frankly creepy order that he marry a virgin.
She was the only one to handle herself with any dignity at all during the divorce/TV interviews and the rest of the grubbiness in the mid 90s.
I think the British public conveniently ignore the fact that pretty much every king since 1066 has had a mistress. Apart from the gay ones - they had the male equivalent.
I like Camilla. I would be happy for her to be Queen. In fact, now I think about it, I think I'd rather than Camilla as the Queen then Charles as the King
Am I a royalist? Don't think so but I don't want to abolish the monarchy. Happy to have it for flag waving, bunting wafting, tourist attracting, constitutional reasons.
So I won't lose faith OP.
And the reason that the Queen has hung on is because she believes it is her duty to do so and her genetics are such that she's going to make it to a ripe old age. Not because of the thought of Queen Camilla.
Like 87 isn't a ripe old age
<snort> a riper older age
Charles, Camilla and Diana were all put in a dreadful position by 'The Palace'. I'm sure Camilla will do a fine job whever she is Queen, or Queen Consort, whatever.
I agree-Queen Camilla is a better deal for all of us than King Charles III.
I secretly hope some disaster occurs and we get Harry Hotspur (fnarr) King Henry. That would be a lark.
I like Camilla too. I've no doubt that if Charles hadn't been PoW they would have married each other years ago. Times have changed and thankfully William has been allowed to follow his heart.
Well, hactually, she will only be queen if she is crowned (has a coronation). The Queen Mother was crowned Queen Consort alongside her husband. It is quite possible that a king can be crowned without his wife. It was sometimes done deliberately - queens were crowned once upduffed, or once they'd already produced an heir. Sometimes a queen was never crowned as she was a second wife, her husband was already knig and no-one wanted to pay for a coronation.
In the case of Caroline of Brunswick, she was separated from George IV, and was banned from his coronation and therefore was never crowned.
Pootles Kings always outrank Queens, just like in a pack of cards.
So when a King marries, his wife gets the title Queen. She keeps the title after he dies, but she doesn't get to reign in her own right because she is "only" Queen because of marrying the King.
But when a Queen is Queen in her own right, like the current one, because her father only had daughters, her husband doesn't get to be called King because then he would outrank her. So he gets a polite title like "Prince Consort" or "Duke of Edinburgh". And, he also doesn't get to reign when she dies.
The Queen Mother was Queen while her husband was King, then Queen Mother afterward. Previously we still had "Queen Alexandria" after her husband died, and once her son was King. But they couldn't call the Queen Mother "Queen Elizabeth" because of the name being the same, so someone came up with "Queen Mother" as suitable.
And I don't really care about Camilla - I'm far more interested in the Plantagenets than the Windsors
It doesn't matter a fig whether they're crowned or not. Edward VIII was never crowned, but he was still the King until he signed the abdication document.
Kitten, I knew that was the case for the monarch, but is it true for the consort? Am desperately trying to think where I read it now!
Come friendly bombs, and fall on Sandringham...
She'll be Queen Consort. That was always clear when they got married.
It's not that she's being pushed more, but more that Charles is being pushed to take on more and more (bit by bit, the Queen is stepping away from day to day duties), and as such, rather than being at his side while Charles wanders round a factory somewhere that doesn't really get reported, she's at his side while he does a bit more high profile stuff, so you are seeing more of her.
I lost a lot of sympathy for Diana in all this when I found out that Charles was dating her older sister when she met him and then waged a campaign to 'steal him' off her own sister... (this bit gets lost in the "charles diana, camila' triangle, that at the point Charles first started dating Diana, he wasn't with Camila)
Poledra The wife of the King is the Queen, full stop. You mentioned Caroline of Brunswick. She was still Queen Consort despite being excluded from the coronation. She was the wife of the King therefore she was Queen, even though he apparently detested her.
Didn't she hammer on the doors of Westminster Abbey or something?
I love that quote from Blackadder. "She's famous for having the worst personality in Germany, and as you can imagine, she's up against some pretty stiff competition."
Disclaimer: I like Germany and have many German friends
There have been several uncrowned queens consort who all had the title of queen. Several of Henry VIII's wives were uncrowned (well, a coronation does take some time to plan, and he was often well on his way to the next wife). Henrietta Maria of France (wife of Charles I) and Catherine of Braganza (wife of Charles II) were not crowned because they were Catholic and the ceremony was not. They were still queens consort.
In more modern times, the Queen Mother had the title queen from the day of her husband's succession, which was several months before her coronation.
I like Camilla - there I've said it. I think she and Prince Charles are good together and she looked lovely dressed in cream for the Queen's Speech the other day. I've always wondered whether we would have had Diana fanatics if she had been ordinary looking.
She's supporting her husband, you can tell she's not doing it for the fame and glory.
She's got a great sense of humour and is dutiful - I like her.
You don't "like" Camilla. How can you- you know nothing about her!
I'd much rather have Camilla as Queen than him as King.
Can't we have a tele-vote...or something ?
I think considering she's smoked like a chimney all her life she looks great. She looked beautiful on her wedding day.
I agree with Pipkins - if Diana had not looked the way she looked, there's no way she would have been as deified as she has been.
(apart from wearing a palm tree on her head)
and this is a part of why I'd much rather he were not king...
I've seen nothing to suggest that Camilla is interested in much other than her grandchildren and horses. Which is a deffo plus when it comes to a royal. IMO. You want them healthily foucsed on thier own lives rather than trying to sneakily run ours, despite never having been elected by anybody, ever.
I don't want Camilla to be Queen. I certainly don't want Charles to be King.
But ho hum, there'll be no revolution. Just years and years of public ridicule and embarrassment.
Especially if the "black spiders" are ever published.
Stupid question (probably) Why wasnt the QM QE2 and the current Queen QE3......?
Because only queens regnant (queens who reign in their own right) get numerals. Queens consort (who are called queen only because they are married to a king) don't get numerals.
Because it's not automatic on marriage. The current Queen was heir to the throne - her mother, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (QM) married in.
Like the Duke of Edinburgh isn't King.
I understood that she would be titled "Princess Consort Camilla" - not Queen Camilla.
To me she'll always be "The OW"
I assume it was because she was only a queen consort and not the ruler, whereas both QE and QE2 ruled in their own right.
Ps I understand that the QM's official title was the "Queen Consort" until QE2 was crowned.
The King's wife is the Queen, and that is the end of the matter.
All this stuff about "the Duchess of Cornwall" etc was put in firstly so it didn't look as if she was taking Diana's titles, but also (I believe) so that people would think that perhaps it would be a Morganatic Marriage (King has a wife who is not the Queen, which was suggested and rejected re Edward VIII and Mrs Simpson) and not make much fuss at the time. But that is not so. She will be the Queen. And good luck to the pair of them. I would not like to see a return to an age where a man cannot marry a divorcee and still be King.
Makes me chuckle grimly that the problem with their marriage lay in the fact that SHE is divorced. The fact that he is divorced doesn't seem to matter much. What is this, Tudor England?
He wasn't divorced, he was widowed, as far as marriage is concerned. The difficulty is that she was divorced from a spouse who was still living. Once the ex-spouse has died, there is no problem with remarriage.
No problem for Henry VIII in the 1520s though?
or was it 1530s?
The Queen Mother stopped being a queen consort as soon as her husband died. She took the title of Queen Mother a few days after his death; it had nothing to do with QEII's coronation.
Or indeed for Henry II when he married Eleanor of Aquitaine. She had been married to the King of France but their marriage was annulled even though they had children together (girls of course so no good).
The Queen Mother stopped being a consort when her husband died and became a Dowager Queen. However she chose to be called the Queen Mother - perhaps because her mother-in-law, Queen Mary, was also still alive at that time, so there would have been two Dowager Queens, which would have been confusing.. If her daughter had not had the same name as her she would probably have just called herself Queen Elizabeth.
Another example: The Dowager Duchess of Devonshire. Her Husband the Duke of Devonshire Died and the title was inherited by their son. His wife becomes the Duchess of Devonshire and the wife of the late Duke becomes the Dowager Duchess.
Well Henry II wouldn't have been head of the CofE, since there wasn't one. And I think it took them a little while to decide that the head of the CofE ought to sort of pay some attention to the rules that everybody else was stuck with. And for the CofE to decide it ought to have some rules about divorce, once it got so that ordinary people could get one!
Annulments (which, of course, are different from divorces, especially in ecclesiastical terms) were not at all uncommon; all you needed was a compliant Pope. Unfortunately for Henry VIII, his particualr Pope was essentially a prisoner of his wife's nephew, so not very compliant.
Yes, indeed. (I am such a history geek; I love these threads).
He wasn't divorced, he was widowed, as far as marriage is concerned.
Charles and Diana were divorced in 1996. She died the following year.
Annulments were frequently granted on the grounds of "consanguinity", meaning that the couple were related to each other. Since the royals only ever married other royals, they were all cousins, however distant, so this was just an excuse to end a marriage that was unsatisfactory for whateer reason.
"Charles and Diana were divorced in 1996. She died the following year."
Yes but the point is, if you object to divorce, you are saying that divorce should not exist, and that in the eyes of God, couples who are divorced are in fact still married, and the only thing that ends a marriage is death. (That is the Roman Catholic view.)
If that is your view, then Diana's death made Charles' divorce irrelevant, as if you believe they remained married in God's eyes after their divorce, her death made him a widower. When he married Camilla he did not have an ex-wife, (or wife if you don't hold with divorce) still living - therefore he was free to marry in anyone's book.
Camilla was also divorced but her ex-husband is still alive.
Morally - they are both divorcees. In the eyes of a Church that does not believe in divorce, Camilla is divorced, Charles is a widower.
't'ain't fair but there it is . . .
Why is the Roman Catholic view relevant here? The royals are CofE aren't they? At least on paper.
I would like to see Camilla as Queen.
"Can't we have a tele-vote...or something ?"
How about a special reality TV event - Britain's got the Monarchy factor - Get Me Out of Here (on ice)?
We could line the royals up in the jungle and make them perform for the right of succession. If Camilla manages to neck a couple of witchety grubs, and sing "I will survive" for Ant and Dec whilst buried in a tomb of rats, then maybe we'd let her be Queen.
I think William will become king, they will pass over Charles
Charles and Diana were divorced in 1996. She died the following year.
However you want to frame the terms, the CofE has for most of its history not allowed remarriage in the church, if one (or both ) of the couple has a former spouse still living. That is why Princess Anne's remarriage was in the Church of Scotland.
The CofE has relaxed that position somewhat, but it is still problematical for a divorced person to marry in the Church if the former spouse is still living. So Charles's status was not the issue in his remarriage; it was Camilla's.
How about a special reality TV event - Britain's got the Monarchy factor - Get Me Out of Here (on ice)?
Yes I've thought this for years. Never mind a general election, have "Cabinet Idol" and decide the Government like that.
Could work well for the monarchy too.
With regards to Charles I think he is the best of his brothers.
<shudders at thought of King Andrew>
"With regards to Charles I think he is the best of his brothers."
The gene pool isn't that wide though, is it?
<ponders selection tasks for Cabinet Idol>
BalloonSlayer's comments are highly relevant because until recently, as I understand it, the CofE view and the RC view were essentially the same.
Oh God. I hope they don't pass over Charles. I am not really a royalist (I was until Wills married C but now I cant understand what makes them royal when they can marry a 'commoner' and dilute the blood - genuine confusion - I still cant understand why people wait to see a 'commoner' - how is she more important than the people waiting for her? As I say - genuine confusion).
However, I do like Camilla and would be happy with her as she is a side kick to a 'true royal'. For me it would go Charles and Camilla and then King Harry - now that would be ok.
But really it would be better to let the whole thing go now imo.
" I cant understand what makes them royal when they can marry a 'commoner' and dilute the blood "
. Well he could have married his cousin, Zara, at a push and further concentrated the limited gene pool.
Why would they pass over him? and if people love William/Kate so much why would you want them taking on the pressure (if there is any) of being King when they have a young family, surely it would be better to let them have some family life before they take on such a role.
I not really in favour of a Monachy but I quite like Camilla, a few gins and cigarettes with her sounds fun. I quite like Charles as well as he seems a bit barking, we need that being British and all.
MardyBra - What about the hundreds of aristocrats around though? It wouldnt have to be cousins or anything. Whilst I accept that these will have commoner blood in somewhere along the line - at least there is still a sense of 'specialness or privelege).
As a commoner through and through myself - I cant imagine queueing up to see another commoner who is not really any different. Bit like queuing up to see a nice mixed breed dog when for years the show has been about a very expensive pedigree!
Am I allowed to say that or is it treason (back pedals furiously - not comparing the royals in any way to dogs at all). Just finding it hard to explain what I mean.
I rather like Charles. He talks to plants. It's very sweet.
And I do obviously accept that C is very pretty and dresses nicely - perhaps that is why people like to see her.
Im going to stop digging....
I like Charles and Camilla, the beautification of Diana really irritates me, she was as responsible for the marriage breakdown as Charles. Has everyone forgotten Hewitt and then squidgygate?
I can't help liking Charles too. I like the fact that he cares about the environment and talks to plants. And I like the fact that he loved one woman all his adult life (if he did) and got her in the end.
I also like what we are shown of Harry.
But really - we don't know them and only know what they want us to.
I'm no royalist, but I love the sound of Queen Camilla.
I don't understand why everyone thinks William and Kate are go great.
We barely know anything about them to know if they are great or not.
I'm not saying we should know more but I don't see what is so wonderful about them compared to say Charles and Camilla.
Also, it semms that he wants to scale the Royal Family back which is a good thing isnt it?
Camilla has had some awful things said about her appearance but I think she looks really good, she did look lovely in her wedding dress.
(oh god this thread is making me very shallow )
I'm not sure he's pushing her so much as the Daily Mail like to print articles about her that make you think that's what's happening.
Then DM readers click the link and respond in their frothy fury about the travesty wrought upon Diana.
I do not approve of the life Camilla has led. I hope she will never be Queen. With all the frowning on adultery and affairs that goes on here how can she be acceptable. Somebody who had an affair with a man with young children.
*"MardyBra - What about the hundreds of aristocrats around though? It wouldnt have to be cousins or anything. Whilst I accept that these will have commoner blood in somewhere along the line - at least there is still a sense of 'specialness or privelege).
As a commoner through and through myself - I cant imagine queueing up to see another commoner who is not really any different. Bit like queuing up to see a nice mixed breed dog when for years the show has been about a very expensive pedigree!"*
Well, where to begin really?
I wouldn't queue up to see anyone because of the specialness of their blood. I might be a "commoner" too, but I don't see that the Royals are inherently any better than me. I would concede that the Royals have a certain celebrity value, and Kate has acquired celebrity status by marrying into them. She's a bit like one of the Kashardians but with more dignity imo.
And to be quite frank, I think it's a good thing to get some fresh blood into the royal line. They're nice enough people, I'm sure, but there are a few of them who could conceivably fall into the "rich but dim" category and, as I mentioned earlier, they need to widen the gene pool along the way. Otherwise, they'll all end up with webbed feet or something.
Also, there have been plenty of commoner queens in the past iirc. It's not that unusual.
And the man in question had nothing to do with it?
Of course not, Hester. Don't you realise that Men Have Needs?
I was until Wills married C but now I cant understand what makes them royal when they can marry a 'commoner' and dilute the blood - genuine confusion - I still cant understand why people wait to see a 'commoner' - how is she more important than the people waiting for her? As I say - genuine confusion
I hate to break it to you, but they are just the same as us. The only differnece isnthe twiddle bit tacked onto the name, the cahs and the massive entitlement 'tude in certain cases.
I was married to a minor royal in my wild and "leap before you look" youth (not the British RF) and went to events where I was seriously outnumbered by the Be-Titled. As common as I was (and am) I wasn't any different from them under the skin.
Although, perhaps slightly less dysfunctional than quite a number of them.
Having hot and cold running servants, with everybody bowing at you, appears to do something very strange to people. IME.
Does that mean you didn't approve of Diana either then viviennemary?
Carpe - but if they are no different to us then what makes them royal. And why have them? And why do people line the streets to see them. Surely there has to be the pretence of being different and the only 'difference' is being 'blue blood' as I think it used to be called.
A pedigree dog is the same as a mongrel in its physical aspect - what is special is that it is rare. The royals have to be 'rare' then and imo that means keeping it aristocratic as much as possible.
But I am no royalist and would get rid of the lot. You cant remove a class system while you have royals at the top. And I dont like the class system.
Mardy - ' I would concede that the Royals have a certain celebrity value, and Kate has acquired celebrity status by marrying into them. She's a bit like one of the Kashardians but with more dignity imo. '
Oh God. Is that all they are now then - celebrities. Is that what we want to lead the country and spend some of our money (however small).
Surely that diminishes their status even further.
'there are a few of them who could conceivably fall into the "rich but dim" category'
Beautifully understated Mardy
but if they are no different to us then what makes them royal
Nothing. It's just smoke and mirrors. A clump of scrambled egg on a shpulder here. A tira there. A bit of pomp. A ladle full of circumstance. A heaped table spoon of pagenty. Ta-Da!
They bleed red just like everybody else. I know this to be true after my (ex) husband has a rather excitable nosebleed all over the kitchen floor.
The Kate Watching Fervouris based on something just as rare and valid as the blue blood "rariety". Cos just like the blue blood thing it's all in people's heads. Her appeal I think lies in the rariety of a Real Live Cinderella, ehich might be wuite enchanting if you are into that sort of thing.
Given that I kissed a Prince only to have him turn into a frog I am a bit off fairytales myself
They won't go even if you sack them. They will lurk around getting the same crowds and media attention. Please see Emanuele Filiberto and his ilk as evidence. They got exiled for yonks after Italy went republic. The royal fascination didn't go away. And got worse when they were allowed back in, still sans offical titles. God god the man sang badly at San Remo and people STILL want to see his mug on the cover of Hello magazine (or whatever it's called in Italian).
And if they do get sacked the risk is they don't get replaced, but get joined..... by Mrs. President and all the flapping that goes on about whichever hapless women gets lumbered with that role.
I don't live in France but still got Carla "Coo Eee, back on the Front Page Again" Bruni shoved so far down my throat I damn near chocked on her.
Human appear to like having idols and FairyTale Representatives. Maybe it just adds a bit of glitter to an otherwise ordinary landscape ?
Even a lot of places without a clearly defined class system have a class system. Some people get to be more equal that others pretty much everywhere. All it takes is one ancestor in the place at the right time (like on the Mayflower) , and bobs your uncle, social kudos on a stick even centuraries later.
frogwatcher42 do you honestly believe that the royals lead the country? they really don't you know, they're just ornaments.
Quite Carpevinum. You could get a monkey from the zoo, put it in a silk gown and diamond tiara and hey presto it's a royal.
You could get a monkey from the zoo, put it in a silk gown and diamond tiara and hey presto it's a royal.
And monkeys are generally a lot harder to spoil rotten and have their head filled with fantasies of their own enourmous sooper dooper extra importance. Which is another plus.
Nanbullen - no I don't suppose I do really. I know deep down they are just ornaments but I suppose I need to justify their existence in my own mind somehow.
I was speaking to somebody in the met police who has to travel to where-ever the royals decide to go (if Prince Charles decides to go off to Scotland, loads of met officers have to go too) and it seemed ridiculous to me that the police go with him just because he decides to go on his hols on a whim. He ought to have to pay for his own team of security to move around with him. Or maybe he does pay the met for their time?
I wonder what the TRUE cost of the royals is if you take into account the met police time, security and tidying up for events etc etc and not just the cost of the money we actually give them?
I know what you mean about needing to justify it somehow Frogwatcher
I find having a royal family increasingly difficult to justify. It just seems at odds with the progression of society. We seem to have moved past tugging the forelock and yet there are hoards of people waving flags wherever the main members go.
Exactly HighJinx. It seems mad to me - totally against the progression of society and equality etc.
Following on from above - The more I think about it, the madder it seems. In the workplace, society, schooling etc we spend our time aiming for equality. We actively try to help those struggling to fulfill their abilities etc. We aim for everyone to be treated fairly and equally. We try to rid the country of discrimination. All of this is good.
And then we have a royal family who are to be bowed or curtseyed to and effectively have us all tugging at the forelock just because they are born or married into a named family.
I completely Frog and nothing brings the ridiculousness of the whole concept of a royal family into focus more than Kate Middleton.
I have nothing against the woman at all. I don't know her.
My point is that one minute she is a middle class girl from Berkshire and then she 'marries well' and people begin to curtsey to her and line up to hand her flowers.
It is utterly bizarre.
It is indeed a very expensive bizarre.
I do find it extremely annoying that the views of Prince Charles are taken seriously for the simple reason he is Prince Charles. Does that make his opinion any better than Jo Bloggs. In my opinion no it does not. I can't believe the number of supposedly sensible people support this royal dynasty nonsense.
Contrary to what many people think, the monarchy pretty much pays for itself. This is because George III signed over all the revenues of the Crown Estate to the Treasury, in return for an annual salary, as it were. This arrangement has continued ever since. Google Crown Estate and you'll see that the RF is a real bargain.
Each monarch since the accession of George III in 1760 surrendered to the HM Treasury the revenues of the Crown Estate, in return for an annual grant known as the Civil List. However, from 1 April 2012, under terms of the Sovereign Grant Act 2011, the Civil List was abolished, and in future the monarch will receive from the Treasury a stipulated percentage of the Crown Estate's annual net revenues (currently set at 15%).
So the monarchy brings the country nearly 6 times what they take out?
I wonder if it's a case though of an innate need in many people to have something to look up to
and fawn over. In America, their president is treated with almost ridiculous reverence isn't he? Far more so than our PM. I thought I was anti royal and when I saw the Queen driven past in Cardiff I ran into the road shouting and waving. The shame!
No I don't think she should be called Queen and I thought this was agreed at the time of their marriage? I thought she was to be called consort. Unless we were lied to? Frankly the sooner William becomes king the better.
I doubt William agrees with you.
bkgirl - I don't recall anything being agreed. An awful lot of hysterical Diana fanatics, of which I assume you are one, ranted about how she could never be Queen blah blah blah.
What precisely is it that you object to?
Do you always call people that disagree with you "hysterical"?
I don't think it's necessarily a case Diana-itus
"An otherwise unnoticed statement on princeofwales.gov.uk, which reiterates what has been said since Charles and Camilla wed in 2005, is suddenly getting attention in the U.K., where the Brits are ever alert to any talk about what happens when the Prince of Wales becomes King Charles III and his wife becomes ... well, what?
"It is intended that The Duchess will be known as HRH The Princess Consort when The Prince of Wales accedes to The Throne," is the bland answer to that question under the FAQ section of the website, which was just redesigned and launched last week."
That rings bells as to what was being said at the time.
Meh - doesn't bother me. I quite like Camilla!
Who said she was going to be Queen? Does it really matter?
I like Camilla. Along with the D of E, and Prince Harry, I think she's one of the ones who would be the most entertaining over a glass of something alcoholic. She will be the Queen when Charles is King, whatever they choose to give her as a title. And I hope she is called Queen, it may have been tactful not to give her Diana's former title, but after the divorce, Diana was never going to be Queen, so her death shouldn't affect the use of "Queen".
And in the only actual test that matters, William and Harry seem genuinely close to their father, happy he is happy, and perhaps fondness for Camilla? If you look at C&C's wedding pics, the princes seem very happy. If they approve, who else really should have any kind of a say?
And I don't think William would ever be happy to upset the natural order of things and want the crown to skip Charles. He comes across as too duty-conscious, much like HM.
Plus, it cannot have been easy for Charles, getting to an age where most people have retired and still not having the only job he'll get. All the wealth and luxury of course compensate, but he's been "in-waiting" his entire life. And I don't believe HM will ever abdicate, so he will continue to wait.
Of course, I don't know these people at all, but just my 2 cents' worth!
I know someone who has met Camilla, he was very impressed by her (and he isn't a royalist or easily impressed). Said she was v. nice.
Also, if Camilla is not made Queen Consort we shouldn't overlook the fact that this may because being Queen isn't what she wants, rather than a sop to the Diana fan-lobby. Being of a lesser status and involvement as a mere Princess Consort might suit the quite independent Camilla very well.
It is terrible that Camilla is being pushed onto us as Queen. She really should be voted in like all the other monarchs... Hold on...
I knew from the day Di died, Queen Camilla was on her way.
Of course the style Princess Consort is more in the spirit of equality, given that male consorts have never been titled king. If they did adopt this style for Camilla, it would fit well with the new law on equal primogeniture.
Am very intrigued to find out who Carpe is. Hopefully not Charlene of Monaco
who seemed coerced into marriage after trying to run away.
Will The Duchess become Queen when The Prince becomes King?
As was explained at the time of their wedding in April 2005, it is intended that The Duchess will be known as HRH The Princess Consort when The Prince of Wales accedes to The Throne.
"Known as" being the operative words here. She can be known as anything she or they want; she will still be queen, just as now she is Princess of Wales, but is known by another title.
Consorting Princess, perhaps, in a nod to their early relationship? After all, we mustn't whitewash the whole three in the marriage business...
Hopefully not Charlene of Monaco who seemed coerced into marriage after trying to run away.
No. Far too old to be her. . And my royal was a more minor one. I married into an Asian royal family. In a place where you get thrown in the clanger if you even vuaguely insult the king. Think Yule Brinner (sp?)
One of Bhumibol's lot then?
Ooooh. You're Deborah Kerr.
<starts singing> "Shall we dance, cha cha cha..."
That's one house. My ex husband decends from another house. I think. Hang on I'll try and get this right...Ok at the end of The Banned Film, the new boy king stands up and tells everybody to stop flopping around on the floor in front of him. He has lots of kids. His first son produced the Bhumibol house, his second son produced the house I married into.
And I absolutly did not do a D. Kerr impression, cos I have seen inside the women's prison in bkk and didn't fancey returning as anything other than a visitor. They take lèse majesté slightly too seriously for my comfort levels over there.
I've met her too. Very typical upper middle class county woman. Perfectly nice.
All the Diana hagiographers do remember she cheated too, yes?
Do we need to curtsey in your presence Carpe?
No love, I garnered from my fun years over there that the protocol in my presence is to wrinkle you nose a litle, sigh deeply and exchange meaningful looks (with an arched eyebrow, just the one mind) with the person nearest to you.
If you could just manage that I'm sure I'd feel I was getting my due respect
Like that, but much posher.
Smother the fucker in silk and diamonds and it is a near enough facimile
Let's just scrap the whole ludicrous anachronistic system and forget the entire boring lot f them.
Er, I quite like Wills and Kate - maybe just skip on to them....
I actually quite admire Camilla. She got where she wanted to be in the end, quietly and with no fuss. She gets on with her role, quietly and with no fuss. No histrionics, no political statements!
Diana was a pawn. She ticked the boxes, Camilla didn't. I think they were ALL stupid and lead by tradition, when nowadays, a stand could have at least been attempted. And TBH I think Prince Charles is the most to blame out of all of them for the whole love triangle thing. He should have fought for Camilla, instead of marrying a naive young girl.
I'd be quite happy for Camilla to be Queen Consort.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.