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

I don't think anyone's saying Diana was a saint, but I find it odd that people wouldn't have any sympathy for a 19 year old who found herself in a marriage with an unfaithful, emotionally distant man and in an environment where absolutely no one gave a shit about her.

I was plenty stupid at 19, but had people who cared for me around to guide and support. Fuck knows what my life and decisions would have looked like if I hadn't.

@Chichimcgee

I expect they’d both rather be pottering around doing their own thing.

I wouldn’t be surprised if he abdicated to William

Never going to happen. He's waited a long time for this and I think he feels the same as his mother about 'duty'

I think more than enough time has passed since Diana's death for Camilla to be called Queen Consort. In fact, maybe a lot of lives would have been happier if Charles had married Camilla in the first place. Diana would probably still be alive married to some rich banker or earl and ok, Harry and William wouldn't exist, but there would be other children. And we would never have heard of Meghan unless we'd been into Suits,

Someone could write a whole new "what if" history based on this

@FrecklesMalone

Charles should have been allowed to marry her in the first place. It would have solved a lot of heartache all round.

Exactly.

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!

If Catherine is widowed while Queen, she will simply be Queen Catherine unless George marries someone named Catherine. The "dowager" and "mother" designation is really only needed if there is another Queen with the same name. The current queen regnant or consort is always simply "the Queen."

The mother of Henry VII, Lady Margaret Beaufort, was known as "my lady the King's Mother." She was never Queen so she could not have that title or be called Queen Mother so, in recognition of her importance to the King (and she was a very formidable and powerful woman), that designation was devised for her. Interestingly, she was Regent for a short time for her grandson Henry VIII, who was not quite 18 when he succeeded to the throne.

Not sure why we should even care. By historical standards, Camilla and Charles have behaved as well as most. Camillla will be queen consort by default anyway, whether she is "crowned" or not.

@SenecaFallsRedux

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!

If Catherine is widowed while Queen, she will simply be Queen Catherine unless George marries someone named Catherine. The "dowager" and "mother" designation is really only needed if there is another Queen with the same name. The current queen regnant or consort is always simply "the Queen."

The mother of Henry VII, Lady Margaret Beaufort, was known as "my lady the King's Mother." She was never Queen so she could not have that title or be called Queen Mother so, in recognition of her importance to the King (and she was a very formidable and powerful woman), that designation was devised for her. Interestingly, she was Regent for a short time for her grandson Henry VIII, who was not quite 18 when he succeeded to the throne.

Thank you, Seneca - that was the point I was trying to make earlier!

No, she was the other woman. Morally she should not be Queen Consort

OW are vilified on here. Hypocritical if we all think differently in this case.

But Charles can "morally" be king? What a load of misogynistic nonsense.

"No, she was one of the other women ,

Just because The Crown does appear to be featuring the other main mistress, or the woman Diana suspected he really wanted to marry in the 90s, it doesn't mean they didn't exist

@theDudesmummy

But Charles can "morally" be king? What a load of misogynistic nonsense.

No, he shouldn't be King either...but that wasn't the OP's question....

@JustSomething

Yes, she should be whatever the RF choose for her as that is the monarchy for you. If you want choice then go for a republic.

....and get a politician. Or someone who wants a bit of glory

....and get a politician. Or someone who wants a bit of glory

And crucially, someone you can vote out again.

I haven't watched it, but I suspect this narrative of Charles and Camilla being prevented from marrying in the early 70s emanates purely from 'The Crown'.

I heard this suggested quite a few times, LONG before The Crown.

Morally she should not be Queen Consort

Morally no "Windsor" or their WAGs should be on the sovereign grant and we should be a republic with an elected neutral president. But no, we'd rather keep bankrolling a bunch of crooks, change is too much hassle.

I think, for many older people who were adults at the time, it goes back to Charles and Camilla continuing their affair before, during and after his marriage to Diana. The tampon tape was a scandal at that time.

Diana was 19 and a pawn within the dynamics of the Royal family. She was brought in to provide an heir, perhaps she believed Charles loved her. The RF were totally unprepared for how the nation would fall in love with Diana. She connected with the people in a way the RF never had before.

Camilla was condemned as a homewrecker and it was seen as pretty heartless and disrespectful that Camilla moved in with Charles after Diana's death. When they married the Queen did not attend.

The thought of her stepping into Diana's life and becoming Queen offended the masses.

If "morality" was the prerequisite we would have got rid of the whole lot centuries ago...

Camilla won't be 'crowned' anything. When Charles is King she will be his Queen Consort.

I am very pleased the Queen has confirmed this as Camilla deserves that title.

The only people who don't are those stuck 25 years ago in the Diana fan club and republicans, of course.

When they married the Queen did not attend

True, but the non-attendance was because she's head of the CofE and couldn't be seen to condone the second marriage. Sanctimonious toeing of the line rather than disapproval.

She certainly approves of them now, as they will secure the Sacred Embezzling of the Taxpayers' Funds for the next x many years.

@ddl1

I haven't watched it, but I suspect this narrative of Charles and Camilla being prevented from marrying in the early 70s emanates purely from 'The Crown'.

I heard this suggested quite a few times, LONG before The Crown.

There was nothing to stop them marrying had Charles dug his heels in. At the time, Camilla was in love with Andrew Parker-Bowles as well as Charles, she and APB did an elaborate dance of tantalising and making each other jealous, she with Charles and he with all sorts of girls.

Its been well documented that Mountbatten advised Charles against marrying Camilla.

If course she should. She will be the wife of the king and it's the title that goes with it.

I don't think Camilla wanted to marry him at the time.

@Crankley

Camilla won't be 'crowned' anything. When Charles is King she will be his Queen Consort.

I am very pleased the Queen has confirmed this as Camilla deserves that title.

The only people who don't are those stuck 25 years ago in the Diana fan club and republicans, of course.

I thought that both George VI & his wife were crowned?

@Viviennemary

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.

How does their 'back-pedalling' impact your life? Why would she be on stamps or coins? Do you not understand what a consort is?