To think Camilla should be queen?

[Brian9600]

Just interested in people's views. The whole Charles/Diana/Camilla thing was grim but it's also grim that she's the one treated as responsible rather than him. All water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned.

(Obviously some people would get rid of the lot of them, and fair enough.)

Vote YANBU for Queen Camilla
Vote YABU for Never Queen Camilla

@Angrycat2768

He was a very part time search and rescue pilot and I dont think he even flew. They invented a job for him to do sitting next to the actual pilot.

He was a co pilot, and then a full time pilot when he worked for the East Midlands Air Ambulance, to which he donated his full salary.

I'm not suggesting he isn't extremely privileged or that he worked down a mine, but it's not fair to suggest he's never done any significant work. Frankly I think he's done more immediate good in his career than I've done in mine.

[quote MrsToothyBitch]@lyralalala - I'm really sorry, I misinterpreted your last sentence!

I also believe Charles is unlikely to abdicate. They just don't do it. Queen Mary taught the Queen to die in harness, I dare say Charles has been told the same. Also he's waited bloody ages.[/quote]
No worries.

Charles spent a lot of time with his Grandmother, QEQM and she was probably the most outraged person in the world at the abdication. He will have had it drummed into him by her that you do your duty.

Neither he or the Queen will ever abdicate imo.

She's vile. They both are.

I don't really see the point in having a monarchy, the Queen is lovely, but maybe the monarchy should end with her.

Re. Camilla, what she and Charles did to a naive, not very bright, atrociously educated teenager was hideous.Diana's mental health was destroyed by it, and I have huge admiration and respect for the way in which she fought back, refused to go quietly, and made them pay. They were hated, at the turn of the millenium. The public despised them, and they knew it. Diana was absolutely the mouse that roared. But she's been gone almost a quarter of a century, Camilla seems a nice woman who works very hard for women's charities (unglamorous ones, like rape aftermath care and domestic abuse), I don't think it's right to judge people by their worst choices and most unforgiveable actions short of eg murder, and so in the final analysis... it's really none of our business, anyway.

So good, the thread needed it twice.

He should’ve been allowed to marry her in the first place.

No I don't think she should be queen and don't really understand why she would be anyway as Prince Philip isn't king?

On the line of succession thing, if the rule about girls being able to be in the line only came in when Kate was pregnant with George then why are Beatrice and Eugenie in the line before Prince Edward?

No. You can't remove someone else's right to the throne by standing aside - the line of succession is extremely clear, and you can abdicate your own, but not your child's. Those aren't your rights to hand off.

Others are saying this can and has happened with other monarchies.

But Wallis's status as a divorcee was much more taboo then than it would be nowadays, simply because divorce was much rarer and more scandalous back then.

Even now, I think two previous divorces might cause some disapproval.

@pipnchops

No I don't think she should be queen and don't really understand why she would be anyway as Prince Philip isn't king?

On the line of succession thing, if the rule about girls being able to be in the line only came in when Kate was pregnant with George then why are Beatrice and Eugenie in the line before Prince Edward?

Because the children of an heir come before younger siblings of the heir. That's why Harry slid further down the line with each child William and Kate had.

It's ridiculous to have a king's wife who isn't queen, so Camilla should be queen, assuming Charles actually outlives his mother.

then why are Beatrice and Eugenie in the line before Prince Edward?

Because they’re andrews children. His line comes before Edward, even if his line is all female. The female/male rule is for if a female child is older than her male sibling, the male comes first in the line. But the new rule has changed that for any children born since George was born.

@Angrycat2768

He was a very part time search and rescue pilot and I dont think he even flew. They invented a job for him to do sitting next to the actual pilot.

He flew. The shit people invent is incredible.

Suppose we punish Charles and Camilla forever. What does it achieve? Do even William and Harry want that to happen?

YABU.

It was a known and accepted fact in the monarchy that a king will have a mistress. The wife is for heirs and royal duties and the mistress for love etc. Diana was aristocratic and brought up around the royal family, they would have imagined that she would have understood how these things worked. However Diana was mentally fragile due to her childhood and her grandmother ( the queen mother's friend and lady in waiting) hid this fact from the royal family. Diana thought she was marrying for love and it further compounded her mental health problems when she discovered the reality of her situation. I don't believe that Camilla can be blamed for this and she would make a fine queen.

@pipnchops

No I don't think she should be queen and don't really understand why she would be anyway as Prince Philip isn't king?

On the line of succession thing, if the rule about girls being able to be in the line only came in when Kate was pregnant with George then why are Beatrice and Eugenie in the line before Prince Edward?

The change for girls wasn't restrospective

However, even if it was the York girls would still be before Edward. Each child born to a person in the line goes into the line after them.

That's why it's William after Charles and not Andrew, and why it's George (then Charlotte and Louis) after William and not Harry

Eugenie's child, when it's born, will go into the line of succession after her and before Edward.

Edward's children are a good example of the rule not being retrospective. James is still ahead of Louise in the line.

@WitchesSpelleas

(I'm not sure why they didn't?)

One reason - despite her early love-affair with Charles when they were both single, Camilla was by all accounts very much in love with and had 'set her cap at' Andrew Parker-Bowles, whom she married long before Charles married Diana. Andrew P-B was an upper class sex-symbol - it's said Jilly Cooper's Rupert Campbell-Black was based on him!

Another reason - Camilla was known to have had previous boyfriends and at the time it wasn't the done thing for the wife of the heir to the throne to have a (publicised) sexual past.

This.

All this silliness saying she shouldn’t be queen because of their affair- most monarchs in the history of the royal family had extra marital affairs, with some having illegitimate children, some of which were the monarch’s eldest child and morally the heir if not legally. It’s ridiculous. The royal family is and always has been rampant with affairs. Why anyone would suddenly decide to hold them to account via Camilla is beyond me.

Maybe people think that two people at it for years and years behind their respective husband's/wife's back isn't actually acceptable behaviour

Thank goodness somebody said it ... and "dignified"? Give me a break

I was no Diana fan and would prefer not to have a monarchy anyway, but the thought of this pair on the throne makes my teeth itch
Looking on the bright side though, a few years of Charles's meddling might just be another nail in the institution's coffin ...

It happened in Russia because the heir was 13 and haemophiliac, but even at the time there was comment on it not being lawful. The laws on succession, in fact, made it clear that it wasn't.

Nobody argued too much firstly because nobody really wanted a severely haemophiliac child at the helm in the midst of a world war, and secondly because there was no monarchy at all within a matter of days, so people had bigger concerns. But there was comment, even then. Nicholas was bound by the Fundamental Laws, and before he had his final child, awho was a son, he was looking into how to alter those laws so his eldest daughter could inherit instead of his brother or uncles (Catherine the Great's son had hated her so much, he had changed the law to bar women ever ruling again). He was an absolute monarch until 1905, but even then there were laws and he had to work within them short of effecting the necessary change - and after that, he had to work with a Duma, and absolutism was gone.

And even had it been lawful, Russian law isn't relevant to our own.

I'm a big Royalist - it always surprises people that I am because of how I look (without going into detail) but I love them, am proud of having them, and will support them whatever.

Mind you I had a party when Meghan and Harry got married, now I won't have her name mentioned in my house...x

@Smallsteps88

All this silliness saying she shouldn’t be queen because of their affair- most monarchs in the history of the royal family had extra marital affairs, with some having illegitimate children, some of which were the monarch’s eldest child and morally the heir if not legally. It’s ridiculous. The royal family is and always has been rampant with affairs. Why anyone would suddenly decide to hold them to account via Camilla is beyond me.

I've heard that any surname that starts with Fitz is from an illegitimate (but acknowledged) royal line.

Sorry Smallsteps88, that was a response to you - meant to quote!

Russian history is fascinating. There's a great book by Simon Sebag Montefiore on the Romanovs - they make our lot look incredibly meek, by comparison!

Even now, I think two previous divorces might cause some disapproval.

Oh, undoubtedly. The red tops would be in clover and the Daily Mail would spontaneously combust! But so many of the Royals themselves have been divorced now, I don't think it would be completely beyond the pale, as it was in the 30s.

Reading this thread has just convinced me the monarchy needs to go. The nonsense about born to rule - their ansestors just won whatever war there was to become king and passed it on in their own family. If you did honestly believe god picked them to rule then why would he pick a family who lets be honest are known for being pretty dim and not at all intelligent.

And then to say it’s ok for them to have affairs as that’s what royalty do and they shouldn’t be judged for it.

It’s pathetic. I have no time for cheaters and certainly wouldn’t excuse them and their treating people like crap because of their ‘royalty’

I have always been pretty indifferent toward the royal family but the amount of people putting them on a pedestal is ridiculous.