To think Camilla should not be crowned Queen

[Viviennemary]

I know there are other threads on this but I thought it would be interesting to get a vote. Seems most people are in favour. I'm not

Queen mother is used as a title to the mother of a sovereign. It's to distinguish from other queens. So when Prince George becomes king after William dies, Catherine if she's still alive, with be the queen mother.

In a way I am past caring but I feel it is a kick in the teeth for Princes William and Harry though they will never say anything anything about it publicly.

I get the impression it's very much water under the bridge for them, and they are nowhere near as naive about their parents marriage and relationships as some members of the public.

They have publicly accepted Camilla into their family from what I've seen.

Some parts of the general public appear to have more issues with it than they do.

I’ve really never understood the vitriol directed at Camilla. Charles and Diana were both unfaithful and they were in a miserable marriage which everyone around them knew had become a sham. It wasn’t as if Camilla seduced a man away from his innocent and blissfully happy wife who thought she had the perfect marriage and husband.
Are you really not aware that he was shagging Camilla before and during his marriage. It was not a result of an unhappy marriage.

I think he should pass to William but he won't - if he is king she should be queen

People have V. SHORT memories...
Camilla offered Diana up as a brood mare to Charles. It was she that suggested the unworldly young Diana given at that time Camilla was still married.
Charles went to see Camilla on the eve of his wedding ( they were still carrying on) and he'd had a ring specially made with their name entwined on it. His heart was never in the marriage and his wife grew to know that.
All the undermining of that young girl by those more worldly than her drove her to distraction. Total lack of support by all around Diana led to it all becoming tit for tat. Sadly was never going to end well.

But Camilla was complicit throughout! A malign influence in the marriage. I defy any wife to put up with such treatment.

I am not happy that we have a hereditary monarchy, but since that is the system that we're stuck with, I don't really see why Camilla shouldn't become queen consort. As the wife of the king, that's what I would expect her to be.

I don't really understand the argument about her not "deserving" it because of the adultery etc. On that basis, Charles doesn't "deserve" to be king either. However, that's the whole point, isn't it? The system is not based on merit or on how deserving they are. We are stuck with whoever inherits the title, and by extension, we are stuck with their spouse too.

FWIW, I don't see that Camilla is any less deserving than the rest of them.

Camilla offered Diana up as a brood mare to Charles. It was she that suggested the unworldly young Diana given at that time Camilla was still married.

This is simply untrue. Diana went all out to marry Charles, presenting herself as sharing similar interests (hunting and so forth). Charles was receptive and Diana was seen as a 'suitable' bride by the Royal Family. Camilla might well have approved of the match but to suggest she 'offered up' Diana is ludicrous. Diana put herself on a plate for Charles and he took her.

That people think that someone like PC is fit to hold the title of head of the church, and that it's OK for Camilla to be his consort really explains why Boris is still in power. It seems we as a nation are used to people in power being lying, self-serving hypocrites. It seems those traits are expected and rewarded.

The point is that under a monarchical system, it doesn’t matter what the heir is like, or what we think of them. If Prince Andrew was older than Charles, he’d be king. If future King Charles turns out to be a rapist or mass murderer, he couldn’t be prosecuted as head of state, and couldn’t be removed.

This is what a monarchical system is - it’s not a meritocracy. The heir, whoever they are, becomes king whatever we think about it and however awful they are. Because they were born “better” than us.

I'm no royalist and - queen aside - none of them have done anything to earn my respect and admiration. Diana was deeply flawed but had so much disappointment and misery in her short life it's hard not to feel sorry for her. And I do find it desperately sad that she missed seeing her sons grow up and knowing how much she would have revelled in her grandchildren.

@Louisianagumbo

Queen mother is used as a title to the mother of a sovereign. It's to distinguish from other queens. So when Prince George becomes king after William dies, Catherine if she's still alive, with be the queen mother.

Not the dowager queen?

I'm reminded of a historical drama where someone insisted on being referred to as 'my lady the King's mother' but I don't know if that was factual or not!

Why not? I mean I don't have any particular need for us to have a queen, but why do you think she shouldn't be just because she's his second wife and a divorcee?

@cuparfull

People have V. SHORT memories... Camilla offered Diana up as a brood mare to Charles. It was she that suggested the unworldly young Diana given at that time Camilla was still married. Charles went to see Camilla on the eve of his wedding ( they were still carrying on) and he'd had a ring specially made with their name entwined on it. His heart was never in the marriage and his wife grew to know that. All the undermining of that young girl by those more worldly than her drove her to distraction. Total lack of support by all around Diana led to it all becoming tit for tat. Sadly was never going to end well.

But Camilla was complicit throughout! A malign influence in the marriage. I defy any wife to put up with such treatment.

Well done, you have posted the biggest load of nonsense I have read on here in a while, quite an achievement! Diana knew fine well what she was getting into and chose to do it. She wanted to be queen. Do try and remember that she was born and brought up in a family that had been drooling around the monarchy for centuries and she had seen her older sister have a brief fling with the PoW. She was not forced into it, she did not have to do it, she chose her path. To be a little less unkind she was a very damaged person which was not her fault, her upbringing made her what she was, she couldn't help that. Charles's fault was in not seeing what he was getting into and being ridiculously naive. There is absolutely no real evidence whatsoever that he was 'carrying on' with Camila or anybody else at the time of the marriage.

Because they were born better than us.

Better at swindling, yes absolutely. Ffs let's get rid of this cringefest.

@Iwab82

Surely Queen consort is just what the wife of the king is called and not the same as being queen??? The biggest news to.me was that Charles was going to be King as I though they were brewing up to William taking over straight away. I think Charles is doing it so William can prioritise his family for a bit longer. Have a feeling neither are overly keen to take over.

It is really, isn't it? It's no different to the role Philip held when you think about it.

As for William, I am not sure he wants the job and think he would rather have a normal family life with Kate and the kids. He'll step up to the plate, but I think it wasn't his first choice.

@TheKeatingFive

You cropped out most of my post . Are you trying to suggest that only people from an aristocratic background are privileged?

What do you mean by window?

Good points, @Andouillette. Some people seem to think that the Andrew Morton book and "The Crown" are unimpeachable sources.

@Ifailed

Does that mean she'll be on the stamps?

Of course not! The monarch is the one on the stamps not his/her consort.

She won't be on the stamps or coins. Its annoying because they stated her title would be Princess Consort and she wouldnt be crowned Queen. Now its backpeddling. Always about what's best for them. Until it comes tumbling down. Like the Prince Andrew fiasco.

She’s not going to be queen. I honestly couldn’t give a hoot about any of them. We should bin the royal family.

I don't know what you mean "what's best for them"?
Camilla will be the Queen when Charles is king. Because of sensitivities around Diana, it was widely thought that - even though Queen - she would be styled Princess Consort.
The Queen now indicates she wishes the conventional title of the wife of a king to be used.
I don't understand the problem?

Are you trying to suggest that only people from an aristocratic background are privileged?

Of course not. Why would you think that?

I'm saying that those from aristocratic families with extensive connections to the royals are better placed than anyone else (outside of royalty) to understand what 'marrying in' is going to be like. And even in their case it's hardly foolproof. But to suggest that Meghan, from an entirely different country and culture was better placed than Diana to understand is absurd.

[quote BringBackThinEyebrows]@EnterFunnyNameHere
I notice Megan doesn't get afforded the same benefit of the doubt for not knowing what she was getting into....

Diana was a teenager when she met Charles and just 20 when she married him. Meghan was (mid?) thirties when she married Harry, after already being married and getting divorced.

Also, the internet has made knowledge far more accessible since Diana's and Charles' relationship.

Meghan had been on TV for years, regularly posing for paparazzi etc. due to her job. Did Diana have that experience pre-Charles?

Both Diana and Meghan come from privileged backgrounds but there are very clear differences so of course Meghan isn't given the benefit of the doubt.[/quote]
That's true, relevant and fair.

However, I do not believe that a person, even in their late teens, who came from a rich aristocratic family with strong and long-standing connections to the Royal family, would be as apparently clueless as to the type of life marrying Charles would entail as most people seem to believe.

I agree that Diana wouldn't have had the preceding exposure to the press etc, but I do not believe she would have been taken totally by surprise to be in the public eye.

So yes there are differences between her and Magan, and yes they are important, but no I don't think that's the sole reason (or even the main reason) why they had such different treatment by both press and the public.

To be clear, I don't think Diana was a bad person at all, I think she did a lot of good. I just don't think she was an angelic paragon of virtue.

I'm happy with the proposal - I wasn't in favour back when they married, but I genuinely believe she has stepped up and earned the title by working for it, unlike some other members of the royal family.

However, I am concerned as to how she would be titled if Charles dies before Camilla. She can hardly become the Queen Mother as she's not William's mum. So after 10-20 years as Queen Consort, would she then lose her role entirely?

I felt a bit sorry for Diana, being so young and with mental health issues. Camilla was a better match all along.

I wouldn’t fancy being royal myself, the money would be great but the negative publicity and eyes on you at all times would be the worst. I remember the papers coming out the day Diana died and the press were really laying into her (they soon changed their tune once the news of her death came out but the papers had already gone to press and they were so poisonous).

To be clear from my end, I think Diana was appallingly treated by both the royals and her own family. But the idea that she would have known less about royal culture and what to expect than Meghan is just bizarre.