Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Camilla to be Queen

470 replies

Thanksfor · 05/02/2022 22:04

I think I’m happy with this (not that’s it’s any of my business). She’s clearly made Charles very happy and has fitted into the family well.
Good for her, it’s deserved.

OP posts:
SenecaFallsRedux · 06/02/2022 00:46

Several people have commented on the queen consort title and why there isn't a king consort title. There really is no good reason that a future queen of the UK could not have a husband with the title King Consort.

There is some precedent in Britain for the husband of a queen regnant to be given the title of king. Philip of Spain, the husband of Mary I of England was named co-ruler when they married and called King of England. He spent most of his time in Spain, though, and never really functioned as a ruler in England. And his title did not survive Mary, who was succeeded by her sister Elizabeth.

Henry, Lord Darnley, the husband of Mary Queen of Scots, was made King Consort of Scotland.

Philip of Spain and William of Orange were co-rulers, but William's title survived his wife's death, unlike Philip's case. Mary II had a superior claim to the throne as the daughter of James II and VII (William was the son of James’s sister), and William's secondary position in the succession was recognized in the settlement which provided that if Mary died first and William remarried, any potential children with a second wife would be after Queen Mary’s sister, Anne, in the succession, thus making her, after Mary's death, the only female Heir Apparent in British history.

One of the reasons for husbands of queens regnant generally not being called King is the historical notion that King is a higher title than Queen. In many European countries where the Salic law prevailed, only men could inherit the throne and so queens in their own right were very rare. And even in countries that allowed women to reign, men took precedence in the succession until very recently (and still do in some).

It's certainly possible with more egalitarian rules about succession, the notion that King is a higher title can change and male consorts can be called King. With more queens regnant on the horizon all over Europe (Sweden, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Spain) and a move to have more equality between the sexes in these matters, we might see the King Consort title revived for the husbands of Queens.

AdaColeman · 06/02/2022 00:47

The Queen Mother was given that title to avoid the confusion of having both herself and her daughter named Queen Elizabeth.
So Queen Camilla would retain that title if she outlives Charles, just as for instance Queen Mary retained her title after the death of her husband.
So, Camilla will never be Queen Stepmother! Smile Smile

Chitchatchatter · 06/02/2022 00:50

The Royal Family in general are an anachronistic and expensive waste of space imo. However I do respect HMQ as an individual who has tried her best to serve the country, even though she hasn’t always got it right, sometimes quite spectacularly so.

As for Andrew, I think he’s the one who’s chosen to make news of his deposition public at this time in the hope that it will be drowned out by all the hoo-ha of the Jubilee celebrations.

ADisgruntledPelican · 06/02/2022 00:51

I wonder if the 'outraged'; 'disgusted' and 'Diana forever' people ever just get tired of manufactured frothing. How ironic that they feel so 'passionate' about Diana and 'her place' but have no respect at all for the Queen. It's almost as though they've been reared on The Crown and the Daily Mail.
I look forward to them all going into work in protest rather than taking the Jubilee holiday. That'll show HMQ how upset they are Grin

GreenFingersWouldBeHandy · 06/02/2022 00:51

Timing of announcement = Sunday papers.

Monopolyiscrap · 06/02/2022 00:54

@ADisgruntledPelican you think disgust being expressed is about the Queen? I can assure you it is about Andrew.

AKASammyScrounge · 06/02/2022 01:02

@BadgerStripes

Pity she and Charles didn't behave with dignity years ago.

Think this is an appalling decision.

Diana and Charles were totally incompatible for all that both of them were decent people. Theirs wasn't a love story but Charles and Camilla's is. It is grossly unfair that after all these years Charles cannot move without being shadowed by a ghostly Diana. He and Camilla are happy together Good luck to them.
Monopolyiscrap · 06/02/2022 01:05

@AKASammyScrounge I don't care if Camilla is Queen.
But I do not agree with the idea that the passage of time means we should forget about an individual's bad behaviour.

Lockdownbear · 06/02/2022 01:09

I think she should be given Queen, she's supported Charles and hasn't put a foot wrong, it feels longer than just 16 years since they married.

Why announce tonight? I guess it's not an easy thing to announce, effectively it's discussing your own death or will with the world.
Celebrating / acknowledging 70 years on the throne must be weird too because effectively your celebrating your fathers death. So in that sense it's probably not odd to discuss your own death, esp if you are 95.
I do suspect after the June celebrations she'll effectively retire and give Charlie's the reign. Not sure how they'll word it but my goodness she deserves to rest up.

Luredbyapomegranate · 06/02/2022 01:15

Distraction, distraction..

I am not a royalist, but the best thing for the RF would be for Charles to step aside for William. It’s hard for a nation to get behind someone coming to the throne well beyond retirement age.

DottyDoge · 06/02/2022 01:17

Find it hilarious that people are disgusted by this. She’s married to the future King. Was always going to happen

ADisgruntledPelican · 06/02/2022 01:19

[quote Monopolyiscrap]@ADisgruntledPelican you think disgust being expressed is about the Queen? I can assure you it is about Andrew.[/quote]
Your posts aren't about Andrew or the Queen. They're about you trying to derail a thread whilst revelling in your ignorance. I won't reply to you again so don't bother tagging me.

Cantleave · 06/02/2022 01:26

@FlorrieLindley

“Pyriah
"Queen of England?" Really? Not Queen of the UK? Just one country within the UK?”

Florriel, if you are going to criticise someone for saying Queen of England, perhaps it would be a good idea to get it correct yourself!! She is not just Queen of England, nor just Queen of the U.K., she’s Queen of a number of Commonwealth countries. The number has varied over her reign, but I think it is currently 14 countries, besides the U.K..

I personally would rather we didn’t have a Queen at all. Perhaps the best gift she could give, would be the dissolution of the Monarchy, after her death!

Lockdownbear · 06/02/2022 01:42

@Twokidsanddone

I got that, and a breaking news notification at the same time stating the Queen was set to step down and coronation plans for Charles were underway. But it disappeared and can't find anything online now. Been driving myself daft wondering if I imagined it
I've just looked through the front pages on bbc news it's on front page of the Daily Star HMQ to quit with in the year.

Being fair PP retired at 95, and HMQ is looking very frail, so it really wouldn't surprise me if she does. But then they might not formally crown Charles while she is still alive.

whumpthereitis · 06/02/2022 02:07

‘Well not to put too fine a point on it, Charles was fucking Camilla whilst married.

Very noble and royal indeed 🙄🤣’

Well, considering the history of the monarchy, yes. Yes it is.

UniversalAunt · 06/02/2022 02:13

I am not surprised at all by the announcement about Camilla to align with the special day for HMTQ. Seems sensible & appropriate.

I am surprised that the announcement about Andrew was released on the Saturday in time for the Sunday papers to pick the item up. I’d have left it to Monday morning. Maybe it was leaked, maybe it was thought a good time to bury bad news?

1forAll74 · 06/02/2022 02:45

The Queen is always going to go by tradition, and I well expexted her to give Camilla this title when Charles becomes a King. Today was special for her,to start off the Jubilee year, and she is obiously going to plan things out for the future,because of her age now.

I thought she looked lovely in the photo's today, with her usual hair style and makeup, and her nice dress and jewellery.

BreadInCaptivity · 06/02/2022 03:25

@SenecaFallsRedux

Several people have commented on the queen consort title and why there isn't a king consort title. There really is no good reason that a future queen of the UK could not have a husband with the title King Consort.

There is some precedent in Britain for the husband of a queen regnant to be given the title of king. Philip of Spain, the husband of Mary I of England was named co-ruler when they married and called King of England. He spent most of his time in Spain, though, and never really functioned as a ruler in England. And his title did not survive Mary, who was succeeded by her sister Elizabeth.

Henry, Lord Darnley, the husband of Mary Queen of Scots, was made King Consort of Scotland.

Philip of Spain and William of Orange were co-rulers, but William's title survived his wife's death, unlike Philip's case. Mary II had a superior claim to the throne as the daughter of James II and VII (William was the son of James’s sister), and William's secondary position in the succession was recognized in the settlement which provided that if Mary died first and William remarried, any potential children with a second wife would be after Queen Mary’s sister, Anne, in the succession, thus making her, after Mary's death, the only female Heir Apparent in British history.

One of the reasons for husbands of queens regnant generally not being called King is the historical notion that King is a higher title than Queen. In many European countries where the Salic law prevailed, only men could inherit the throne and so queens in their own right were very rare. And even in countries that allowed women to reign, men took precedence in the succession until very recently (and still do in some).

It's certainly possible with more egalitarian rules about succession, the notion that King is a higher title can change and male consorts can be called King. With more queens regnant on the horizon all over Europe (Sweden, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Spain) and a move to have more equality between the sexes in these matters, we might see the King Consort title revived for the husbands of Queens.

I love reading your posts and learn so much from them👏

BreadInCaptivity · 06/02/2022 03:42

[quote Monopolyiscrap]@AKASammyScrounge I don't care if Camilla is Queen.
But I do not agree with the idea that the passage of time means we should forget about an individual's bad behaviour.[/quote]
Whose bad behaviour?

Diana was shagging her bodyguard well before Charles and Camilla got back in the sack together.

Also consider who behaved badly in multiple affairs with married men....

People have a dim memory about Diana.

She did some great work re:AIDS and land mines but she had a pretty poor history when it comes to personal relationships.

Put bluntly she was fucked up by her upbringing (as was Charles).

Camilla spent most of her married life being cheated on by Andrew PB.

All the protagonists here are imperfect and have dodgy upbringings.

That's why I think the Cambridge family will save the monarchy.

Cathy

BreadInCaptivity · 06/02/2022 03:45

Posted in error.

Catherine has created a new dynamic of "proper" family.

You might not like it and it's fine to be a republican.

For my own part I don't like the idea of a President or a monarchy but I prefer the latter.

Seemslikeagoodidea · 06/02/2022 03:59

I liked Diana and for some years after her death I had the opinion that Camilla should never be queen, as she couldn't replace Diana and shouldn't gain status by her tragic death. However, as the years have passed and I've seen how happy and content Charles and Camilla are together, it seems obvious to me that Camilla is the love of C's life and the marriage with Diana was doomed to fail from the start. Camilla has been a steady consort for Charles and has behaved with dignity, and the Queen clearly rates her highly. So, if she's good enough for the Queen, that's good enough for me. (Never thought I'd say that, but time brings perspective.)

Seemslikeagoodidea · 06/02/2022 04:10

@BreadInCaptivity I agree with you, all three people involved made mistakes. Also, Kate/Catherine has really grown on me. She seems to have what it takes to cope with royal duties, and is so personable and composed in the way that she carries herself, it's like she was made for the job. Truth be told she is my "girl crush" (which is odd as I'm happily married to a man). Smile

Lockdownbear · 06/02/2022 05:29

@BreadInCaptivity I agree with you to. Diana wasn't the angel she was made out to be. Her and Charles both entered the marriage from the wrong reasons. He saw an 'acceptable' womb, she saw glitz and money.

Charles and Camilla are as steady a couple as they come. And should have married each other in the first place.
He failed to give the right message that he loved her, she didn't know, he went to sea for 6 months, she met APB.

Hey hindsight is a wonderful thing.

But I guess the whole statement is that HMQ was acknowledging how supportive PP was and wishes Charles has that same level of support from Camilla and she is correctly acknowledged for giving that support.

Kate has blossomed too, despite the rumours of affairs, William and Kate do seem a steady, head screwed on, couple.

DaisyChains3 · 06/02/2022 05:41

I don’t think Diana was interested in glitz and money at all. She was from a very wealthy background herself. She wanted love and a family. Stability. The things she hasn’t had herself. She was damaged and lonely and very inexperienced. He was completely the wrong man for her.

DaisyChains3 · 06/02/2022 05:48

@SenecaFallsRedux

Several people have commented on the queen consort title and why there isn't a king consort title. There really is no good reason that a future queen of the UK could not have a husband with the title King Consort.

There is some precedent in Britain for the husband of a queen regnant to be given the title of king. Philip of Spain, the husband of Mary I of England was named co-ruler when they married and called King of England. He spent most of his time in Spain, though, and never really functioned as a ruler in England. And his title did not survive Mary, who was succeeded by her sister Elizabeth.

Henry, Lord Darnley, the husband of Mary Queen of Scots, was made King Consort of Scotland.

Philip of Spain and William of Orange were co-rulers, but William's title survived his wife's death, unlike Philip's case. Mary II had a superior claim to the throne as the daughter of James II and VII (William was the son of James’s sister), and William's secondary position in the succession was recognized in the settlement which provided that if Mary died first and William remarried, any potential children with a second wife would be after Queen Mary’s sister, Anne, in the succession, thus making her, after Mary's death, the only female Heir Apparent in British history.

One of the reasons for husbands of queens regnant generally not being called King is the historical notion that King is a higher title than Queen. In many European countries where the Salic law prevailed, only men could inherit the throne and so queens in their own right were very rare. And even in countries that allowed women to reign, men took precedence in the succession until very recently (and still do in some).

It's certainly possible with more egalitarian rules about succession, the notion that King is a higher title can change and male consorts can be called King. With more queens regnant on the horizon all over Europe (Sweden, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Spain) and a move to have more equality between the sexes in these matters, we might see the King Consort title revived for the husbands of Queens.

Great to see you posting again Senaca! Have missed reading your posts which are always so informative and well balanced.