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

but the thought of this pair on the throne makes my teeth itch

If an affair was enough to keep someone off the throne the monarchy would have been dead an buried a long time ago!

@perfectstorm

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.

Thank you! It is all very interesting.

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

Bizarre

@Whenwemeet

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.

Nobody is saying the affair was ok or that Charles and Camilla were fantastic to do it. Some people have pointed out that it's a unique family with its own rules and expectations, and others that it happened in a context about 40 years ago.

But there are plenty of people like you who can't let it go and won't see any nuance in it, even though it wasn't your family. That's a shame, in my view, but the monarchy ideally has to try not to court controversy, so it probably is best she doesn't take on any titles that would piss off people who feel the way you do even further.

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.

If that’s in response to my comment I don’t think that at all. Firstly I don’t think the monarchy should exist. Secondly, I was saying that affairs are commonplace in the royal family, not that they are ok. It’s silly for people to act surprised and outraged and say it is reason for someone not to ascend to the throne when that’s how it has worked throughout the history of the monarchy. Why would it suddenly change now?

I’m not a royalist but tbh the shame was that Charles wasn’t allowed to meet her in the first place. Camilla and Charles are a bit of an endearing love story fucked up by the establishment

It was a known and accepted fact in the monarchy that a king will have a mistress

But since people keep insisting that we've "moved on over the years" shouldn't we perhaps expect better?
If we're sticking with tradition, though, there are many more - including that mistresses sit on the bed not the throne, that the RF can't marry a divorcee and still be monarch, and even that a future head of the CofE can't contract a valid civil marriage

As so often it seems Charles expects whatever suits doesn't it?

Marry not meet 😂

I don’t think Charles should be King, he should just pass it on the William. The pair of them should be ashamed of their actions in their younger years.

Gosh definitely don’t head over to the relationship board @PrincessNutNut to tell some of the heartbroken women there they need to think about the ‘nuance’ of their husbands affair, that they shouldn’t say anything bad about the woman cheating with their husband and breaking up their family as they’re not ‘one dimensional’ and maybe the cheaters are in love which apparently makes it ok.....and then tell the many other posters who support those women it’s a shame they feel for the OP as it’s not their family . I’ve never heard so much defence and praise of the ‘other woman’

I don't think that he should be King. He knew exactly what he was doing at the time when he had the affair. I accept that he wasn't happy but not a lot of effort appears to have gone into saving the marriage. I hold him to a higher standard because when he takes the throne he will also be the head of the Church of England so he should have known better and been advised of any repercussions. I think that it should go straight to William. Camilla broke her own marriage vows and then became the other woman. Nuff said!

* 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 in a nutshell. They should have been allowed to marry then. But the world was a very different place for the Monarchy back then. Kate’s sexual history had no relevance at all when she and William became engaged.

As for the question, I’m not bothered either way what title Camilla is given. Especially as Charles probably won’t be King for all that many years anyway. The Queen appears to be in reasonably good health at 94 and her mother lived to 101.

It will be similar to Edward VII, who came to the throne late in life after his mother Queen Victoria’s long life.

@Attictroll

I’m not a royalist but tbh the shame was that Charles wasn’t allowed to meet her in the first place. Camilla and Charles are a bit of an endearing love story fucked up by the establishment

That's not the whole truth, though. He would have been advised against a marriage with Camilla, had it been in question, because she had had previous relationships. But Camilla didn't want to marry him at the time - she wanted to marry the man she married, Andrew Parker-Bowles.

@Whenwemeet

Gosh definitely don’t head over to the relationship board *@PrincessNutNut* to tell some of the heartbroken women there they need to think about the ‘nuance’ of their husbands affair, that they shouldn’t say anything bad about the woman cheating with their husband and breaking up their family as they’re not ‘one dimensional’ and maybe the cheaters are in love which apparently makes it ok.....and then tell the many other posters who support those women it’s a shame they feel for the OP as it’s not their family . I’ve never heard so much defence and praise of the ‘other woman’

I don't. I told you, the only thing I say about affairs in general is a) they're never "right" and b) they're not all the same. So I don't have a stock answer for all of them. It depends massively on context.

And there is a shed load of context for this one, not least that they've been in love for many years, the marriage was doomed anyway and it's been such a long time. I do agree Diana was treated very badly too, but all things consisted, I don't see any reason for the country to damn them forever. As far as I can tell, all living relatives have made peace with it.

For those saying their behaviour was repulsive you do realise Diana had affairs with married men too?!

I don’t think Charles should be King, he should just pass it on the William.

It's been explained several times on the thread - he can't 'just pass it on'. This isn't dear old dad who's manager of the family construction firm deciding to retire and hand the reins to his favourite son. It would require an Act of Parliament.

I hold him to a higher standard because when he takes the throne he will also be the head of the Church of England so he should have known better and been advised of any repercussions

I've no more time for the CofE than for the monarchy, but it seems Charles regards standards as something to bemoan and to expect of the "little people" rather than himself

As for "being advised", there's a long and depressing history of discarded staff which rather suggests that the only advice he'll accept is what he wants to hear

@Newuser991

For those saying their behaviour was repulsive you do realise Diana had affairs with married men too?!

Yes...and there was a context to those too, namely her horribly unhappy marriage and the way she had been exploited. She wasn't an evil person for them either.

Didn't Nicholas abdicate in favour of his cousin before the Bolsheviks decided to get rid of the Romanovs altogether?

Yes...and there was a context to those too, namely her horribly unhappy marriage and the way she had been exploited. She wasn't an evil person for them either.

Yes but considering how much suffering she got from her husband's affair, she showed a remarkable callousness towards her lovers' wives.
And she was also rather oblivious to the effect it might have had on her sons.
Weren't there stories that they were bullied at school and that their housemaster made sure he hid the papers from them?

Just a lighthearted recommendation for those of a republican bent - Sue Townsend's The Queen & I and its sequel Queen Camilla (thread title reminded me) are an amusing take on what might happen were the Royals kicked out with a vengeance.

@Gancanny

She would technically be Queen anyway as the wife of a King but I think they're planning to use the title Princess Consort to avoid the issue.

Of course all this could have been avoided if they'd just let Charles marry Camilla in the first place all those years ago, they seem very well suited to one another.

To add fuel to the fire, she is also the Princess of Wales, as the wife of the P of W but no doubt that would really upset the applecart! I think she should use the title of Queen when Charles becomes King. What happened in the 80s was a tragedy for so many people, orchestrated by his family and her very ambitious father and grandmother but to drag it on forever is wrong. Neither Charles nor Diana behaved well, but I never bought into the whine that she was naive about royal ways, she had been brought up alongside the Queens younger sones and had been in royal company all her life. I think she knew exactly what she was getting into.

@chaosisaladder

I’m team We Shouldn’t Have A Monarchy But If We Have To Please Not That Utter Wet Wipe And His Mistress

Hear hear!

To add fuel to the fire, she is also the Princess of Wales, as the wife of the P of W but no doubt that would really upset the applecart!
I think she should use the title of Queen when Charles becomes King.

What's worth noting is that we now have a whole generation to whom, unless they're very interested in recent history, 'Princess Diana' will just be a vague name. She died 23 years ago, so realistically no-one much under 30 is going to have strong, sentimental memories of her. It could be 10 or more years before Charles ascends the throne, so by that time there'll be even more people who won't care that there ever might have been a Queen Diana.

I was watching a programme on TV a while ago where a 40-something mum was talking to her teenage DC about the Royal Wedding of 1981. The DC assumed this was the wedding of Charles and Camilla - and I'd bet they wouldn't be the only young people to assume that.

Is there a voting option for "I don't really care either way"?