Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think Camilla should not be crowned Queen

483 replies

Viviennemary · 06/02/2022 00:41

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

OP posts:
JinglingHellsBells · 06/02/2022 09:27

Threads like yours are pointless @Viviennemary

This title is not one you or anyone else is going to influence, other than HM Queen Eliz.

FWIW I understood that one reason that Camilla and Charles spilt up was she didn't want the awful life of a Royal.

And as for Anne- it's widely known in their circle that she had affairs, when married to Mark P, and also supposedly since she's been married to Tim W (and that their marriage is just a front.)

SoupDragon · 06/02/2022 09:28

@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
Why not?

She will be married to the king.

Vicliz24 · 06/02/2022 09:30

@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
BadgerB · 06/02/2022 09:30

@theDudesmummy

Entitled adulterous men are pretty standard in the history of the royal family.
...and in elected positions.
NiceShrubbery · 06/02/2022 09:32

@LagunaBubbles

Does it really matter? What will happen will happen no idea why some people seem to care so much.
Yes of course it matters.

For decades, people have ignored who was in power, who was pulling the strings and who was directing the money supply.

We ended up with Boris, Toryshambles and the RF embroiled in an international paedophile ring. Happy?

theDudesmummy · 06/02/2022 09:32

@BadgerB exactly so

DrivelandNonsense · 06/02/2022 09:37

Can people not wake up and see how ridiculous the royal family are now! The future king and queen who have been selected by god to rule are a cheating lying man and the ‘other woman’. Yet you will all bow down to them as your ‘betters’

Is that how low your standards are! Where’s your self respect.

theDudesmummy · 06/02/2022 09:37

@NiceShrubbery I agree that the continued existence of the British royal family in its current form, and the rot and corruption that exists at the heart of the Tory party (both establishments tolerated and even venerated by people who those in power would not piss on if they were on fire) are not coincidences but two sides of the same coin.

Lifeisaminestrone · 06/02/2022 09:40

I’m rather fond of Camilla. She does a lot of good charity work - including her encouragement of reading. There is a lovely video of her at Battersea Dogs Home, I watched today and she seemed a genuine and warm individual.

Like @MyGPsurgeryisUseless, I prefer her to Kate. I find Kate’s PR which conveya the image of perfection, doesn’t sit well with me as lacks honesty and has a sense of oneupmanship, which I don’t sense with Camilla.

Thoosa · 06/02/2022 09:40

It was always going to happen. All the “Princess Consort” business was public relations. Mark Bolland spent two whole decades of his career dedicated to making Camilla acceptable to public opinion.

I’m just thankful that we’ve dropped all the “blue blooded virgin” nonsense and so hopefully won’t get a rerun of Charles and Di. Having a monarchy at all is anachronistic but that was a complete disaster.

Wanttosleepproperlyplease · 06/02/2022 09:46

Why do you care?

Abraxan · 06/02/2022 09:47

having that pair with that history at the head of the Church of England is bonkers\

Do you know the origins and history of the Church of England?
Or of previous monarchs and their family?

Seriously, C&C relationship is hardly worth mentioning compared to the history of some of our previous monarchs and heads of church.

It's a monarchy anyway. We don't really get a say.

I think recently YouGov polls and similar show most people don't really care these days. Much of the hysteria following Diana is old news and people don't really mind anymore. Camilla seems to have quietly worked her way into her role, showing she is capable of playing her part now as a much older woman.

She will be Queen Consort, whether some Diana fans like it or not.

InisnaBro · 06/02/2022 09:49

@Forshorttheycallmecomp

I’m a committed Republican. But, if you “believe” in the monarchy, then Camilla will be queen (consort). The problem with monarchy is you can’t pick and choose the rules, they are what they are, and (to my mind) just because we’ve had a devoted public servant for 70 years, doesn’t mean it’s something we’ll always have, ergo we should get rid of the monarchy. (Also it is quite ridiculous on many many levels)

“Camilla shouldn’t be queen” is from the same logic as “it should skip a generation to William”. It’s not how it works: the moment the queen breathes her last, Charles is king, and his wife is his queen. The princess consort arrangement was tactical but she would always have been technically his queen, even if she would never have been known as it.

Well, yes, exactly. If you are pro-monarchy, you’re approving of a system whose fundamental basis is that you don’t get a say. You get whoever is next in line to the throne, be they dutiful ribbon-cutting drone, dimwit Oprah interviewee, Nazi sympathiser, man trying to wriggle out of an investigation of his relationships with trafficked underage girls etc, and that means you also get whoever they happen to be married to when they take the throne.

You don’t get to say you think the monarchy should skip a generation to a candidate you consider more deserving, or express a preference for the current heir’s dead ex-wife rather than the woman he’s actually married to.

OutwiththeOutCrowd · 06/02/2022 09:51

The whole Royalty thing is a game of make believe for grown ups, a social construct. People can choose to continue to buy into it if they wish. Camilla gets to be called Queen. Camilla doesn't get to be called Queen. It's all arbitrary in the end.

Horological · 06/02/2022 09:52

*LagunaBubbles

Does it really matter? What will happen will happen no idea why some people seem to care so much*

It really is not true at all that 'what will happen will happen' The reason why this news that Camilla is to be queen consort is in the news is because the queen has not been sure what role or title Camilla should have. BECAUSE OF PUBLIC OPINION. She has been holding back deciding because she thought it would be unpopular.

The monarchy exists only as long as we allow it to and the monarchy are very well aware of this. The Queen completely changed her response to Diana's death because of public opinion and Tony Blair's speech. Public and political opinion of the royal family is absolutely crucial.

It is not the middle ages any more. If we decided to get rid of the royal family or even just decide they should live in council houses there is nothing at all the royal family could do. They have no actual power over us. The RF monitor our opinions extremely carefully and adjust every little thing they do to keep the people onside. I don't know why people can't see this.

Abraxan · 06/02/2022 09:53

@Notwithittoday

I also think he’ll abdicate to William. I don’t see him on the throne
Highly unlikely. He has never indicated any such wish. He will also have been brought up to believe it his duty and obligation, in the footsteps of his mother - who will also never abdicate from the role, for the same reasons. I suspect he would see abdication as disrespectful to his mother, grandfather and to the country.
KindergartenKop · 06/02/2022 09:54

It would be different if William and Harry were still children but they're big boys now and everyone has moved on. It was sensitive to not call Camilla the Princess of Wales as that was Diana's role, even though Camilla technically was entitled to that title. But Diana was never anywhere near being Queen and she died 25 years ago. It's time to move on.

Thoosa · 06/02/2022 09:55

@Wanttosleepproperlyplease

Why do you care?
TBF to OP, citizens taking an interest in the leadership of the country and the power structure can only be a good thing.
EnterFunnyNameHere · 06/02/2022 10:01

I've never understood the rhetoric that Diana was some poor, naive matchstick girl tricked into thinking she was marrying for love. The Spencers were unbelievably rich, and aristocrats in their own right (far more so than Camilla!). To act as if Diana had no idea what she was getting into is frankly insulting to her - I don't think she was so stupid. And that's before the affairs she had during the marriage. I notice Megan doesn't get afforded the same benefit of the doubt for not knowing what she was getting into....

Plus - why are people hating on Camilla only? If she doesn't "deserve" to be queen consort, why does Charles "deserve" to be king?

The whole thing is based on who your parents are and/or who you're married to. It's nothing to do with being deserving. You either agree with that (and all it entails) or you don't.

ChargingBuck · 06/02/2022 10:01

Why not Camilla in particular OP?

Like any of the rest of the self-serving bunch of in-breds are more deserving? Who would you prefer, & WTF is going on with a country that reckons a handful of arrogant elitists deserve jewels, fancy hats, & special parades?

InisnaBro · 06/02/2022 10:02

@Thoosa, I’d agree in principle , only this interest is more Hello magazine level/sniping at someone they regard as the Hard-Faced Evil Rival of the sympathetic young heroine in a soap, than anything approximating a consideration of constitutional monarchy.

MsAgnesDiPesto · 06/02/2022 10:02

@GrandmasCat

I don’t care anymore that their relationship started as an adulterous relationship, they are old, they are happy and all that.

But having that pair with that history at the head of the Church of England is bonkers. They appeased the public by saying she was going to be a Princess consort then back tracked on that.

The queen is certainly loosing it, first protecting Andrew and now this. This monarchy has to end as soon as she passes.

Do you know how and why the Church Of England came into being?
Ciaram55 · 06/02/2022 10:05

Just the very words "kings" and "Queens" sound so out of place in modern society. I'm sure in years to come children will be fascinated appalled that we once had such a thing.

TimBoothseyes · 06/02/2022 10:06

having that pair with that history at the head of the Church of England is bonkers

Erm you do know how the Church of England came about don't you?

Thoosa · 06/02/2022 10:06

[quote InisnaBro]@Thoosa, I’d agree in principle , only this interest is more Hello magazine level/sniping at someone they regard as the Hard-Faced Evil Rival of the sympathetic young heroine in a soap, than anything approximating a consideration of constitutional monarchy.[/quote]
We’ve all been living with that narrative for decades.

Thank goodness it’s fading.