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

Yes, you can vote for your favourite. That always works out so well

I'm never sure why the answer to a broken electoral system is no say at all.

@TheKeatingFive

Yes, you can vote for your favourite. That always works out so well

I'm never sure why the answer to a broken electoral system is no say at all.

Because there's no point in having a say in electing someone with no power at all.

And would the President's family do charity visits etc etc?

Because there's no point in having a say in electing someone with no power at all

Have a look at what presidents can actually do, before making sweeping statements? And no, not POTUS.

@Lalliella

The other main mistress was Kanga, Lady Tryon, now deceased but very much around both before the marriage and in its early years.

The other was named by Diana in the 'Mishcon note'

wikispooks.com/wiki/The_Mishcon_Note

in which she states her belief that Camilla was just a decoy for the Prince's real intentions

Because there's no point in having a say in electing someone with no power at all.

You think there's no point in having any say over the person to whom you give incredible soft power and unimaginable privilege.

That's an ... interesting ... take

I would not like a President as head of state. They are either elected by the people (including businesses they've given bungs and promises to which affects legislation) or self appointed. They do not guarantee democracy. They can use heavies, armies or overseas help to keep them in power. They can be part of a kleptocracy. At least with a monarchy, even if it has far too much money, cannot intervene in the government of the people. The Queen is Head of State but she cannot dismiss a PM, just advise him or her. She cannot vote. It also guarantees a form of permanence that a presidential election every x years cannot unless you are Putin who rollers over opposition. And presidential elections in the US for one cost billions. Am I naive?

@NiceShrubbery

How does their 'back-pedalling' impact your life?

Exactly the same way as paying for benefits cheats (NB: cheats, not justified recipients) affects yours, ours and everybody else's. Precious resources going where they are not needed.

The amount of unclaimed benefits significantly outweighs those fraudulently claimed. Not that this ridiculous simile has any relevance whatsoever. Nobody on MN will have their life impacted even a tiny bit by Queen Camilla.

They are either elected by the people (including businesses they've given bungs and promises to which affects legislation) or self appointed. They do not guarantee democracy. They can use heavies, armies or overseas help to keep them in power. They can be part of a kleptocracy.

You need to go and educate yourself on the different presidential models used by various countries. Your post is a bit embarrassing in its lack of understanding.

The Royals have power. Of course they have.

In public, they must always be seen to be politically neutral but that's something else entirely.

Nobody on MN will have their life impacted even a tiny bit by Queen Camilla.

Don't be silly. Everyone on MN pays their taxes down the royal toilet, like good little serfs.

We don't need queen Camilla, king Charles and their 27 royal estates. But we do need a lot more affordable social housing, so perhaps start with the obvious targets?

Am I naive? Yes afraid so, crosstalk.

Have a look at the creepy af Privy Council and backdoor legislation also. Not pleasant reading, sorry.

@FloraPotts

I am not in favour either op but I've no doubt it's going to happen. People have very short memories. I think it's incredibly sad how Diana, barely out of her teens, was used so cynically by those around her, including Charles & Camilla. Imagine walking down the aisle to be married, aware that your fiance's mistress is seated prominently among the wedding guests. If Camilla had had any conscience at all she should have taken herself off to live in Ireland or France or somewhere and have left them well alone. The marriage would probably still have failed but it would have been the honourable thing to do. I think you would have to be incredibly hard-faced to behave in the way she did. I don't think she behaved honourably and of course neither did Charles. However much you love a person, you should back off once they marry someone else, especially when there are young children involved.

She wasn't "her fiancé's mistress", at the time Charles and Diana married.

Camilla was the ex-girlfriend who was married to someone else, and had young children.

Camilla dated Charles "on a break" from Andrew Parker-Bowles before getting back together with him and marrying him.

They rekindled their relationship when Camilla's marriage to Andrew Parker-Bowles failed.

@NiceShrubbery

Nobody on MN will have their life impacted even a tiny bit by Queen Camilla.

Don't be silly. Everyone on MN pays their taxes down the royal toilet, like good little serfs.

We don't need queen Camilla, king Charles and their 27 royal estates. But we do need a lot more affordable social housing, so perhaps start with the obvious targets?

This thread is about her being crowned Queen. It makes absolutely no difference whether she’s Queen, Princess, Empress or Goddess - the cost will be the same regardless.

@endlesssighing

She’ll never be queen. She’ll be Queen Consort, it was a condition of their marriage.

queen consort is a posh way of say here’s the king and his wife. Kate will be the first Queen after Elizabeth.

No Kate will be a Queen Consort too.

We are unlikely to have a Queen Regnant in our lifetimes, the next possibility is Princess Charlotte, if George dies without children.

She wasn't "her fiancé's mistress", at the time Charles and Diana married.

Camilla was the ex-girlfriend who was married to someone else, and had young children.

Camilla dated Charles "on a break" from Andrew Parker-Bowles before getting back together with him and marrying him.

They rekindled their relationship when Camilla's marriage to Andrew Parker-Bowles failed.

Yes, I am aware that this is the "official" version JesusMaryAndJosephAndTheWeeDon but there are conflicting reports about this. It was reported that Camilla took Diana out to lunch before the wedding, they were certainly both photographed together before the wedding, so we know Camilla was still very much 'present' then. I guess we will never know the truth for sure unless someone in their inner circle breaks ranks and spills the beans.

Yes Blossomtoes it probably will cost the same. But if she's queen instead of queen consort/random wanky title, they'll invent some loophole exempting her family and wider family and anyone that's ever known her from paying tax or having to behave like a commoner, create trust funds and generally get financially creative so the RF get even more obscenely wealthy at our expense. But I guess they'll probably do that anyway, whatever we're forced to call her. Absolute masters of self-preservation, got to hand it to them.

Sorry for being so tax-centric but if the RF weren't all so disgustingly grabby I could just limit the rants to the saving of grouse and the taking-back of land.

@NiceShrubbery

Yes Blossomtoes it probably will cost the same. But if she's queen instead of queen consort/random wanky title, they'll invent some loophole exempting her family and wider family and anyone that's ever known her from paying tax or having to behave like a commoner, create trust funds and generally get financially creative so the RF get even more obscenely wealthy at our expense. But I guess they'll probably do that anyway, whatever we're forced to call her. Absolute masters of self-preservation, got to hand it to them.

Sorry for being so tax-centric but if the RF weren't all so disgustingly grabby I could just limit the rants to the saving of grouse and the taking-back of land.

She will be Queen Consort 🤷‍♀️

The rest is just a lot of childish bollocks. It’s pointless to engage.

Yep, 27 threads of pointless bollocks and the fuckers are still here, bleeding us dry.

Camilla has never worked for a living, ie a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. On her first marriage certificate, the Peter Bowles marriage, bride's occupation is a blank space. So what if she "works" for charity? That doesn't encourage people to give more to those charities. Even Kate worked part time briefly before she joined the RF.

....wanders into 1925...

....rides out on a Charabanc....

I’m surprised anyone thinks the royal family should uphold moral standards in regards to their personal life, considering that pretty much the entire history of the royal family consists of them doing precisely the opposite.

I have no strong opinions one way or the other in regards to the monarchy, but have no issue whatsoever with Camilla.

Yes, you can vote for your favourite. That always works out so well....

So is having zero choice, none whatsoever, even if the incumbent is an amoral criminal, better than being able to vote out someone?
Explain that one to me.

@Lockdownlard

But prince Philip was never King Philip? What’s the difference?

Quite, why didn't she give the honour to her late husband when she could?

"Quite, why didn't she give the honour to her late husband when she could?"

Because she couldn't?

@ComtesseDeSpair

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.

Frankly I doubt either Charles or Camilla are much interested in whether they get called King or Queen, despite this odd view in the media that Charles is desperate for his time to come. I expect they’d both rather be pottering around doing their own thing.

This