Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think that Camilla is a bit of a national treasure

385 replies

GitAwfMayLend · 29/04/2011 20:23

Yes another wedding based thread.

I think she seems a good egg. And looked lovely today.

Plus there were a few moments where she looked very emotional in the abbey, was very touching.

OP posts:
Chynah · 30/04/2011 22:48

Love her. And he actually seems happy when hes with her. Shame they weren't allowed to marry 40 years ago could have saved all sorts of anguish.

SybilBeddows · 30/04/2011 22:55

maybe she wouldn't have stood it though - she might have ended up leaving like Diana and Fergie. She could have loved him and still found the life didn't suit her. The life she has now is probably pretty different from what she would have had if she had married him when young and she is also older and more mature and perhaps better equipped to handle it than a younger woman would have been. we'll never know....

galletti · 30/04/2011 23:00

National treasure, NO! Lovely lady, mum and grandparent yes. Loved the thing on the balcony when Charles was holding her grandchild. Made me remember that they are all just a family at the end of the day, like all of us.

Sad that it wasnt Diana up ther though.

Snorbs · 30/04/2011 23:31

This thread has reminded me of a question my DD asked me that I wasn't able to answer:

How come it's Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Phillip, rather than Queen Elizabeth II and King Phillip I?

pooka · 30/04/2011 23:34

Not sure. Is it maybe because in hierarchy, king trumps queen. So when you have a woman monarch, her consort has to be called prince rather than king? Prince Albert was that. But then you had William and Mary.... Hmm

Might have to google.

MollieO · 30/04/2011 23:43

I'm not a fan of Camilla but she definitely looked unwell today. There was a long held shot of her in the Abbey holding her order of service. The entire time her hands were shaking so much I doubt she could have actually read the words. I'm wondering if she has Parkinsons.

Yellowstone · 30/04/2011 23:44

William and Mary were different because William was invited in from the Netherlands to become king in his own right. The fact that he was married to James II's daughter Mary gave extra legitimacy to William's rule given the fact that Parliament ousted James II and ignored her half-brother, also a James.

pooka · 30/04/2011 23:49

From what I can glean, Victoria wanted Albert to be king-consort. But parliament refused. So he was prince consort. She apparently wished that the same rules would apply to future generations. Elizabeth ii followed that example. Hence prince Philip.

Apparently there are special crowns for queens consort. But none for a king-consort to a regnant queen. I would have thought they might be able to knock one together from bits and pieces lying around. But evidently not.

And to op: yadnbu. I think camilla would be an excellent queen. I like her. Lovely photo of her thanking the horses that drew the carriage from the wedding to buckingham palace, with Charles laughing. Personally I think she fits right in.

The polarity of the camilla/Diana thing is very wearing. Human relationships are complicated and it's not just a case of team Jolie/team aniston. And fundamentally, if the princes have taken to her as they obviously have, then who are we (royal we) to maintain a sense of indignation on behalf of wronged parties? Particularly as it's hard in the Andrew p-b/camilla/Charles/Diana to find a party that wasn't wronged as well as a wrong-doer. I don't understand the beatification of Diana just as I don't understand the vilification of camilla. Is very unimaginative and lacking in subtlety.

edam · 30/04/2011 23:51

William of Orange was different - not merely the Queen's consort but a joint monarch (that's why the architecture and reign is described as 'William and Mary'). He was Mary's cousin and a grandchild of Charles I (IIRC). Protestant nobles brought him over to defeat the forces of Catholic James II and transfer more powers from sovereign to parliament in the 'Glorious Revolution'.

Re. Camilla - I suspect she has a sense of humour. I went to a reception at Clarence House last year and had occasion to check out the ladies. In the cubicle I happened to choose, there was a picture of Camilla receiving an honorary degree. I am not entirely sure whether the message was 'honorary degrees from newer universities are not worth the paper you wipe your arse on' or what...

Original poster
GitAwfMayLend · 30/04/2011 23:56

Have not seen photo of her thanking the horses, that seems to sum the woman up really.

William of orange was Mary's 2nd cousin wasn't he - in that they were descended from Charles I in the same way (Charles I grandfather to them both). Yes he was invited to be monarch in order to keep the catholics out iirc.

What was Queen Anne's husband? Was he prince consort as well? Or was he king in his own right of some other country?

OP posts:
pooka · 01/05/2011 00:05

here it is
she just seems really natural to me.

Snorbs · 01/05/2011 00:11

Ah, right. So it's one of those royal sexist things, is it? If you're a bloke who's in line for the throne then your wife would be queen, but if you're a woman in line for the throne then your husband will merely be prince consort.

Makes (depressing) sense. I'd already had to explain to DD the deeply sexist symbolism of Kate's dad giving her hand in marriage, so I guess this will be another one of those conversations. Bugger.

Yellowstone · 01/05/2011 00:20

William was different from the others because of the situation with James II/ public opinion/ Catholicism.

As far as the current succession goes it's a total irrelevance whether or not Diana had affairs too or was anorexic/ bulimic or had a child with anyone other than Charles. It's irrelevant too whether Camilla is a good granny and step-mum or is a barrel of laughs. What will matter is whether the public will accept Charles and therefore Camilla given the lack of honour and duty both showed during their respective marriages. That issue is inevitably heightened because Diana died and has been beatified by some. They aren't ordinary or 'just like us' and have greater privileges and therefore duties. The monarchy was in crisis around the time Diana died and both it and the deference previously shown to it have changed, something Simon Schama and one of the Queen's closest advisors acknowledged on the BBC yesterday.

clam · 01/05/2011 00:22

Look, it's not X-Factor. We can't just vote for the attractive ones who appeal. The constitution is laid down and there is no way on earth Charles would step aside for William. And why the hell should he? Because some shallow people think William and Kate make a nice couple. OK, they seem to, but the monarchy is just a tad more serious than that.

clam · 01/05/2011 00:26

Oh, and I agree. I think that Camilla is alright. I think that William and Kate went out of their way to show she's accepted, not least by asking her granddaughter to be a bridesmaid, but also shown by the fact that Kate is reported to have had several lunches with her recently.
If William of all people can move on from the heartache his mother suffered, then surely we can.

Original poster
GitAwfMayLend · 01/05/2011 00:28

Thanks for that link pooka - great photos, loads I haven't seen before. That pic of Camilla with Charles laughing is lovely.

Snorbs - yes the whole 'giving the bride away' thing is patriarchal, however can look at it as the father being involved closely in the wedding. My dd said yesaterday 'it will be lovely walking down the aisle with you like that, mum' which I must admit I welled up at Grin

OP posts:
Yellowstone · 01/05/2011 00:37

Good soundbite clam but in that case why would Edward VIII step aside for his brother? The monarchy was no less serious then. In fact with those storm clouds gathering across Europe it was probably a great deal more serious in 1938 than it is now in 2011.

Tbh it's not in the least shallow to say this lot need to earn their place.

Are you on the inside track? I'd be interested to know how you can be so emphatic/ italicised about Charles not stepping aside.

This thread is a really good justification for making history a compulsory subject. Lots of revolutions both Glorious and less so pre-dated Simon and Louis on the X-Factor.

Snorbs · 01/05/2011 00:39

What your DD said is really sweet :) And as a dad then, sure, I'd love to be involved in my DD's wedding. But I'd equally love to be involved in my DS's, too.

I'm just really uncomfortable with the symbolism that my DD is my "property" to be given away to another man, whereas my DS is someone who will acquire a wife who will be given to him by another man. I think if either of my children end up seeing things like that I'll feel that I'd failed them somewhat.

Yellowstone · 01/05/2011 00:39

X posted. clam the constitutional point has bugger all to do with William and Harry moving on.

Yellowstone · 01/05/2011 00:43

Snorbs my best friend walked down the aisle with her husband to be even though her Dad was there. You don't have to 'give her away', you can be involved in a different way, not a big deal.

dittany · 01/05/2011 01:07

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ilovemydogandMrObama · 01/05/2011 01:26

But Dittany, it's, 'true love...' Wink

flippinada · 01/05/2011 09:40

I don't have an opinion on whether Camilla is a national treasure or not (William and Harry don't seem to have a problem with her however) but can I just make a wee point here.

As a poster above so eloquently put it, the monarchy is not the X factor and you don't get to choose the best looking/most talented/most puppy eyed one.

There have also been, in the monarchy's 1000 yr + history precisely THREE abdications - Edward II in 1327, Richard II in 1399 (actually these two were arguably usurpations rather than abdications) and Edward VIII in 1936. None of those happened because the public 'wanted it'. They were down to the politicial machinations by the powers that were at the time.

As for monarchs needing moral probity..I invite anyone who seriously believes this is a requirement for the job to do some reading up on British history. There have been some real shockers on the throne. Camilla and Charles are chicken feed in the the bad behaviour stakes, to use a clumsy metaphor.

clam · 01/05/2011 10:34

Edward VIII never wanted to be King. And, frankly, he was unsuited to be so anyway. Wallis Simpson did everyone a favour really by taking him way.
Charles does want to be King.
And I was making two separate points about the constitution and William and Harry's attitude towards Camilla. Hence two separate posts.

Yellowstone · 01/05/2011 10:58

flippinada the X Factor analogy can be used for both arguments so isn't that eloquent.

There's little point if any going back to the 14th century and employing semantics to try to suggest what a 21st century heir to the throne in an entirely different type of monarchy might or might not do if he feels strength of opinion is against him.

Edward VIII was kicked out not just by a Harrovian led coup, but because public opinion was against him (or at least against the proposed missis).

Of course monarchs in the past weren't all exemplars of unblemished moral practice but I'm not sure that even you with your evident learning could shore up an argument to say that the relationship betwen the Crown and the people has regressed. The Queen admits that it's changed and evolved in recent years, because it's had to and I guess she knows.

I can't see why it should be thought to be such a bad idea that those who take on the throne should set a decent example: Charles and Camilla can't do that now, not with their past. If you can't do the time etc.

Swipe left for the next trending thread