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 like Camilla, I'd love to have a few gins with her.

The RF pushed Charles into an arranged marriage with a suitable young girl and he agreed to it. None of that is down to Camilla. Yes, she continued an affair with Charles throughout the marriage, it seems to be a bit of a Jilly Cooper country set fox hunting trope - people have a "respectable" well connected marriage then shag who they want. Andrew Parker Bowles did the same thing, doesn't make it right - cheating and hurting people is never acceptable.

But, Charles probably has quite a skewed view of marriage and loyalty given the circles he moves in. And Camilla was not his only girlfriend during his engagement and marriage - Kanga Tryon was one of them.

Camilla has proved herself as much more than just the other woman and she seems to make him happy. It's all academic anyway as Charles will probably only get to be King for just a few years.

Prince Philip didn't want to be King Consort. He thought it was a naff title and would make him look like a pseudo king. He wanted to do it on his own terms, which is why she bestowed the title of Duke of Edinburgh upon him, because he thought it had a better ring to it.

@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. Careful though, the acolytes of St. Diana the Faultless will be out in force ...

I like Camilla, I'd love to have a few gins with her.

She definitely looks like she'd be more fun than most of them!

I think it's astounding that anyone gives a shit.

@daisyjgrey

I think it's astounding that anyone gives a shit.

Whether you are a royalist or not, they are powerful figureheads of the country and we should be aware of what they're doing.

I'm actually shocked people care so much about this. Charles committed adultery but people aren't up in arms about him being King.

This isn't a new or unique situation. Kings and Princes have been committing adultery since the beginning of time. Kings have had their wives executed and married their mistresses. Camilla was always going to be Queen - even if she didn't use the title. Just as she is the Princess of Wales.

@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.

Completely agree. We really need to lay Diana to rest. It was a tragedy. But it was 25 years ago. And I don't think she'd have made a good queen anyway. Camilla will be ideal.

they are powerful figureheads

That's an oxymoron. They're figureheads, only there for show. They're not powerful as they can't stop the government doing whatever it wants, as we have seen recently.

it seems to be a bit of a Jilly Cooper country set fox hunting trope

Yes - apparently the Rupert Campbell-Black character was inspired by Andrew Parker-Bowles.

The Queen wants it. She knows the woman better than anyone here, and obviously respects her and is fond of her.

Why anyone should have an opinion otherwise, based on about 0.001% of the information and awareness that the Queen has regarding her, I really don't know.

Why anyone should have an opinion otherwise, based on about 0.001% of the information and awareness that the Queen has regarding her, I really don't know

Imagine daring to have an actual opinion. About the people that, um, "reign" I think they call it, over you.

@sammylady37

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.

The only amoral criminal I see in public office at the moment lives in 10 Downing Street. Because the majority voted for him.

Wasn't it Ken Livingstone who said, "If voting really changed anything they'd have banned it"?

Because the majority voted for him.

You mean the minority. 44 percent.

Plenty of crims in Buck Palace also, you're just choosing not to look.

Or is it fine for a group of randoms to be above the law?

@NiceShrubbery

Because the majority voted for him.

You mean the minority. 44 percent.

Plenty of crims in Buck Palace also, you're just choosing not to look.

Or is it fine for a group of randoms to be above the law?

If someone can win the top job with less than 50% of the vote I can't see that a vote for President would produce a clear majority. There'd be more candidates for a start.

The winner would be unlikely to be the sinless individual who would put the Palace gang to shame.

And only the monarch is above the law, not the whole gang

Whether you are a royalist or not, they are powerful figureheads of the country and we should be aware of what they're doing.

We're as aware of what they're doing as they're letting us be. Being aware of something does not correlate to giving two hoots about it.

I would much rather have Queen Camilla than Carrie as First Lady if the republicans got their way

Anyway the only people that have the right to comment on Charles and Camilla’s relationship are William and Harry and of course Camilla’s children and it appears like they all get on great

What is really going to be different now that she will be styled as Queen Consort rather than Princess? I think the world has moved on in the 30 years since Charles and Diana divorced and if she was still alive then potentially they would all be civil with each other by now.

Plus like Anne, Camilla quietly gets on with the job and doesn’t court publicity

@Lockdownlard

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

Rightly or wrongly, the general rule is that the woman takes her 'title' from her husband's not vice versa, it's the reason that Anne's husbands didn't automatically have a title and that there's Princess Michael of Kent. Being titled Queen will not give Camilla the role of Queen in the sense that QE II is Queen.

@DeadButDelicious

Charles will be King therefore Camilla will be Queen Consort. Because that's how royalty works.

Prince Phillip wasn't King because Kings outrank Queens. Because sexism that's how royalty works.

We can't 'skip straight to William' because that is not how royalty works. You don't get to pick and choose.

Kings most certainly don't outrank Queens, each is the monarch and, except for William and Mary, it's one or the other.

@Womencanlift

I would much rather have Queen Camilla than Carrie as First Lady if the republicans got their way

Anyway the only people that have the right to comment on Charles and Camilla’s relationship are William and Harry and of course Camilla’s children and it appears like they all get on great

What is really going to be different now that she will be styled as Queen Consort rather than Princess? I think the world has moved on in the 30 years since Charles and Diana divorced and if she was still alive then potentially they would all be civil with each other by now.

Plus like Anne, Camilla quietly gets on with the job and doesn’t court publicity

I get tired of combating this misunderstanding every time abolishing the monarchy comes up. An elected Head of State is an entirely different role to that of prime minister — they would be two different people, with entirely different powers.

Presumably if the monarchy were ended, there would need to be a consultation on which of its powers would be retained in a president and which moved elsewhere (like head of the C of E). The elected HoS doesn’t have to be a career politician — why would he or she? It would be a largely ceremonial role and should be someone with broad, rather than a specific party, appeal. It could be someone with a long record of public service. (David Attenborough topped an opinion poll last year.) if you don’t like them, they’re only in the role for four years, or whatever length of term is decided.

@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.

Kate will be exactly the same, she will be Queen consort, the word consort has only been used in relation to Camilla because of the Diana situation. The Sovereign's spouse is the consort, each Albert was Prince Consort to Victoria.

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?

She'd just be Queen Camilla, I suspect. After George V died, Queen Mary was technically Queen Mother but I think she was always known as Queen Mary.

If she outlives Charles, wouldn’t she be Dowager Queen?

No, she’d technically be Queen Mother but, given her immense tact I imagine that would be negotiated with the King and there would be agreement on her title.