Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

King Charles and Queen Camilla

381 replies

LoveInTokyo · 16/05/2018 07:36

AIBU to wonder why so many people seem to think this will not happen?

I can understand why a lot of people abroad seem to think it’s likely that Prince Charles will just hand over the crown straight to William because he’s younger and more popular. Most countries don’t have royal families, and in some European monarchies routine abdication is something that actually happens.

But I was reading some of the completely mental royal wedding threads on here and was surprised by the number of similar comments. I particularly enjoyed one Daily Express reader’s person’s comment about how the public would never accept Camilla as queen.

I don’t think most people give a shiny shit whether Camilla is Queen or not, but those that do have an issue with it will have to get used to the idea. Prince Charles didn’t have to give up his place in the line of succession when he married her, therefore unless the Queen outlives Charles, he will be king and Camilla will be queen!

OP posts:
Queenoftheblitz · 16/05/2018 23:06

Doesn't Andrew PB have a thing going with Princess Anne now? She always seemed sensible. Don't know how she can bear to touch him.

Yes anne dated pb before he marrried camilla. I think they saw each other again when he divorced camilla. Anne doesnt like camilla.

Original poster
LoveInTokyo · 16/05/2018 23:11

Onehellofaride well then they’re going to be disappointed, aren’t they? Because that is just not how the monarchy works in this country.

OP posts:
Butterymuffin · 16/05/2018 23:14

Anne doesnt like camilla

Christmas with the Royals must be an absolute ball.

BertrandRussell · 16/05/2018 23:14

"as the younger royals are a breath of fresh air in the monarchy"

Honestly? Do you really think this? Have you ever met a real life young person?

HasAnyoneGotAProblemWithThat · 16/05/2018 23:16

Queen Isn’t that why the orders of precedence were changed? Apparently Anne said she wasn’t going to curtesy to Camilla so the Queen changed the rules. But that’s all hearsay of course!

Queenoftheblitz · 16/05/2018 23:30

Queen Isn’t that why the orders of precedence were changed? Apparently Anne said she wasn’t going to curtesy to Camilla so the Queen changed the rules. But that’s all hearsay of course!

That rings a bell! After the queen camilla is the most important woman in the land.
Anne refused to curtsey to her so the rules have been changed.
The royals are very snippy about titles, curtseying and military uniforms. Would love to see camilla and anne at christmas. Anne is just scarey.

SenecaFalls · 16/05/2018 23:47

The order of precedence is important for things like who enters a room in what order, etc. I have read that they don't actually curtsey to anyone other than the Queen. Think about it. Have you ever seen any of them bow or curtsey to anyone other than the Queen in public?

GnotherGnu · 17/05/2018 00:01

Because she had an affair with Charles when he was still married to Diana.

That wasn't a problem for at least two of Henry VIII's queens.

Queenoftheblitz · 17/05/2018 00:08

It was a problem for Anne Boleyn. The Vatican didn't recognise the marriage and neither did the public. She got a bad reception in the street on her coronation day.

GnotherGnu · 17/05/2018 00:21

Yes, I don't understand this either. Why would he change his name when he becomes king?

It's moderately common practice. George VI and Edward VII were both Albert, Victoria was Alexandrina, etc.

GnotherGnu · 17/05/2018 00:23

Someone who has other people to put toothpaste on their tooth brush and lay out their clothes for them must be lacking in some things

The toothpaste thing is known to be a myth. It only happened for a short time when he'd broken is right arm.

SenecaFalls · 17/05/2018 00:31

Name changing is actually not that common. Unusual, in fact. George VI did it to create continuity with his father's reign after the abdication. And with Edward VII, it was a fairly small change; he had been known as Albert Edward.

Victoria was named Alexandrina Victoria, but she was known as Princess Victoria of Kent before her accession and was known as Victoria by many as a child.

SenecaFalls · 17/05/2018 00:34

Victoria and Albert planned for and expected their son to reign as King Albert Edward.

Another issue with Albert is that it was perceived as a foreign name (in fact so was Victoria), while Edward is about as British (English actually) as you can get.

SenecaFalls · 17/05/2018 00:59

Also I have read that the family began the shift to calling Victoria by that name instead of Drina when they realized that she could never be called Queen Alexandrina.

Victoria's parents wanted her to have more traditionally British names, but the Prince Regent wouldn't allow it and basically made them give her two foreign names. He definitely had issues, which is understandable, I suppose, because in effect Victoria had replaced his deceased daughter as future queen.

HadronCollider · 17/05/2018 12:12

I genuinely dont understand the whole constant replications of the same names in the RF over and over again?

So many Elizabeths, Georges, Charles, Williams and on and on. Are you any less Royal if you're called something else suitably posh like Henrietta or Titus Confused

SenecaFalls · 17/05/2018 12:19

There have been a few Henriettas but you have to go back a bit.Queen Henrietta Maria was the wife of Charles I. And their youngest daughter was Princess Henrietta.

No Tituses though, as far as I know.

Thishatisnotmine · 17/05/2018 12:25

William never appears to be particularly eagar to be King. With his young family, the work he has done, more of a 'life' than previous heirs, I imagine it is not a role he would want soon. Charles becoming King would delay that. In the same posistion, I would definirely become Queen so my dc didn't have to!

HadronCollider · 17/05/2018 13:37

Interesting about the Henriettas. I'd like a Tristan or Shirley for any future royal babies.

raisedbyguineapigs · 17/05/2018 13:49

You either want the monarchy, in which case you take who you are given as The Monarch and their wife or you want to choose who you want as Head of State and have a republic. It's not for us to 'accept' Queen Camilla or not. We are subjects and put up with whatever the reigning monarch says. I think the younger Royals are a bit spoilt. They fantasise about privacy and how much they'd love a private life because it sounds great when you have no concept of having to work to pay your bills or even having to think about paying for repairs to your stately home. They have worked but never had to.

scarbados · 17/05/2018 13:50

As one of the generation we keep hearing 'can't forgive' Camilla for what she did to Saint Diana, I find it hilarious that we're all meant to be so pious and narrow minded! For the record, I'm a granny of 66. I remember the whole story, or as much as was public knowledge at the time. We didn't all idolise 'Shy Di' - not all of us were taken in by the helpless and innocent act. She grew up on the Sandringham estate where eveyone knew the score between Charles and Camilla. She married as a career move, with Princess of Wales being the job she wanted. If anyone else had married her big sister's ex, she'd have been slated for it but for some reason it was never questioned when Diana did it.

I admire Camilla. She could easily have betrayed Charles and written a kiss-and-tell story of their relationship and made a fortune out of it. But she didn't That tells me a lot about her integrity and basic decency. (And before anyone tells me that decent women don't have affairs - look at your own family and friends. All perfect? Didn't think
so!)

derxa · 17/05/2018 14:28

(And before anyone tells me that decent women don't have affairs - look at your own family and friends. All perfect? Didn't think so!)
No my family and friends don't tend to have affairs. Definitely not the done thing in my family.

BertrandRussell · 17/05/2018 14:46

It's. It a matter of forgiving Camilla or sanctifying Diana. As I said, I am a republican and have no skin in the game. What I don't understand is why Royalists seep perfectly happy with the fact that their figurehead will be someone who married a teenager while in a long term and ongoing relationship with another woman. A woman who he could have married if he had been prepared to stand up to any objections from the RF. His behaviour was normal for previous generations of royals-but this was in the 1970s.

SleepingStandingUp · 17/05/2018 14:55

Even if Charles hadn't been waiting his whole life for the crown, I suspect he'd want William and the kids to have as much of a normal life as possible for as long as possible. Even if he's only on the throne for a decade, William would be mid 40's- early 50's, the kids would be teenagers. In reality if the queen survives another decade and Charles to a similar age we could just end up with a series of old men taking the throne for comparatively short periods of time

MiggeldyHiggins · 17/05/2018 14:57

It's. It a matter of forgiving Camilla or sanctifying Diana

Or you know, neither, cos you couldn't actually give a shit? Like 99% of people.

derxa · 17/05/2018 15:15

A woman who he could have married if he had been prepared to stand up to any objections from the RF. His behaviour was normal for previous generations of royals-but this was in the 1970s. Charles is quite a weak character and reportedly was cowed by his father. You're saying it was the 1970s. Still quite a conservative era. Certainly in my social group.

Swipe left for the next trending thread