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

@NotThisWeekSatan

Agree with you too *Cheescakesunflowers, we were typing simultaneously!

[quote theDudesmummy]@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.[/quote]
Yes.

@TimBoothseyes - I seriously doubt they do.

@Ciaram55

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.

Presumably many of those children will have inherited homes and assets from their parents or grandparents and as such have a decent idea that even in modern society this is how they’ll have ended up so much better off than some of their peers, by accident of birth?

I couldn’t care a jot about the RF and whether they remain or not, but why is theirs - now that they are virtually powerless politically - the only type of inherited wealth and position which puts people’s noses out of joint? Either we do away with any allowing kind of inheritances whatsoever or we accept some people are inevitably going to have more of it to inherit than others?

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

Well quite. And kings and queens have always been so moral and upstanding in the past too .

I think it's honestly quite weird that people try and hold royalty (and politicians) up to moral standards of behaviour in their personal relationships when a) people in such positions of power have pretty much always done as they pleased (but without so much publicity about it) and b) breaking up marriages and ending up with the OW/OM seems to be so utterly commonplace in normal life.

So many people here who seem terribly invested in the monarchy yet have absolutely so idea how it works.

This announcement is just another way that HMQ is putting her house in order before she dies. It would have been likely to happen anyway, but making her wishes expressly clear would have been her way of putting the seal of approval on it so there is less opposition when Charles announces that this is how Camilla will be known. She would have been the de facto Queen Consort anyway, but they would have had to use another courtesy title for her, if she wasn’t styled as Queen. Which should in fact have been Princess of Wales, because that’s what she is, and it’s the highest of her titles, but that would have been another whole can of worms.

The Diana fetishists will be leaping all over this as another way to prolong their bizarre personal pain over losing someone they never knew almost a quarter of a century ago, but it’s really not a big deal in the scheme of things. They really should take a leaf out of her book and spend that energy on doing something good for other people.

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

Precisely this, which is exactly why he's stayed out of his own children's decisions, it seems.

@fallfallfall

queen consort not the real deal monarch.

That's right. I would object to her being THE Queen but she won't be.

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.

If I'd had to pick who to sit next to at a dinner party out of Camilla and Diana, I know who I'd have gone for - Camilla every time. Apparently, she's a hoot.
Nowadays, Zara Tindall. I like her. And Princess Anne.

Anyway, off-topic. As you were...

@Cam2020

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

Precisely this, which is exactly why he's stayed out of his own children's decisions, it seems.

If he had married Camilla when they were in their twenties, she would have produced two children and have had a long term affair with Andrew Parker-Bowles.

'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....
I don't really think you can compare the life and relationship experience of a 19 year old Diana with that of a previously married, tv actress in her late 30s.....
I imagine Diana did think Charles loved her and it would all work out. The only reason she started having affairs is because he always cheated on her. Who wouldn't in her shoes?
While I've never been a great Diana fan, I do feel very sorry for a young person thinking they were entering a fairytale and realising it's a nightmare.

I always think Camilla seems lovely.

Charles I can't stand.

I literally can't think about the 2 of them without the whole 'i want to be your tampax' conversation. 🤦‍♀️

@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.

I agree with this. I am a royalist but as I get older, I do despair of the lot of them. To be so hard faced and uncaring says a lot about their true character and I've no wish to see her as Queen.

I'm also aggrieved at the fact they publicly stated when Charles and Camilla got married that she would not be Queen but instead would be known as Princess consort (in the same way of Prince Philip and Prince Albert) and now the Queen herself had gone back on that.

The only reason I'm still a royalist is I've no idea what we would replace them with and given the shower of shit governments and prime ministers we seem to end up with, I'm not hopeful we'd get anything better.

I really do wish it would skip Charles altogether and go to William (really because I think Catherine would do a great job as Queen)

Queen or not queen. It's just a meaningless title anyway.

As the consort to the monarch she will have whatever role does with the position regardless of what she is called.

Can't get myself worked up by this at all.

Why do we still have people suggesting the Crown "skips Charles" and goes to William.
It's not X-Factor, fgs!

But, but, but, ...Camilla should be blamed for everything that happened to Diana.

Isn't it always the woman's fault?

@Lockdownlard

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

I’ve always wondered this! Why they always refer to Kate as future queen, but he was never king??

@32NiceShrubbery

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?

What on earth has that got to do with whether Camilla should be called a word Queen or not!

And as for ending up with Boris and the Tories (again nothing to do with Camilla) that will because of the amount of people in England that voted for them, here in Scotland you will agree...they are not so popular lol.

@CushionSpiral read the thread, the difference is his sex

I don't really think you can compare the life and relationship experience of a 19 year old Diana with that of a previously married, tv actress in her late 30s....
I imagine Diana did think Charles loved her and it would all work out. The only reason she started having affairs is because he always cheated on her. Who wouldn't in her shoes?*
While I've never been a great Diana fan, I do feel very sorry for a young person thinking they were entering a fairytale and realising it's a nightmare.
I always think Camilla seems lovely.
Charles I can't stand.

I agree. I think the depressing thing is that young women were still being used as a commodity. What Diana's family did was no different to what the Seymours and Howards were doing to their young female relatives in the 16th century; likewise, all the RF cared about was their line of succession and not letting the Papists in.

Things have moved on just a little. Camilla has done her job as Charles' support, she deserves to be consort (if anyone 'deserves' any such title).

InisnaBro - I agree. It really isn't a soap opera, though that is how it has been sold. Although monarchs have had PR machines for millenia - Roman emperors had their portraits stamped on coins; Tudor Queen Elizabeth I arranged for copies of her portraits to be sent all over England....

However:
If a country needs a ceremonial/diplomatic/symbolic head of state (which almost all nations seem to think they do) then surely it's better to have a figure who is above/beyond party politics. Otherwise there's the danger of getting people like Trump etc.

The problem is how to choose a non-political head of state. Look at the problems Italy has been having recently; the previous president begged to retire but has been persuaded to stay on for a bit longer, because they (Italian politicians) can't find/agree on anyone suitable to replace him.

Hereditary monarchy is definitely not a perfect solution to such problems, but the current HMQ has - since she was in her 20s - devoted her life to the job, as she sees it. Some may admire her, many others criticise. But in either case, how horrendous a job - a gilded cage: endless ribbon-cutting, meeting and greeting, an awful lot of travel, constantly on show, constantly judged, constantly guarding one's tongue, no personal privacy, no personal freedom, a vast and sometimes antiquated bureaucracy running one's life, self-seeking hangers-on, endless and often inaccurate media criticism with very little chance to reply, some influence, prhaps, but little actual power etc etc.)

Vast wealth and comfort, yes, but I'd rather be poor and private and free.

@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.

@MistyGreenAndBlue

I can't imagine what possible difference it would make to anyone. Who cares really?

This!

The Duke of Edinburgh only had the title "Prince Philip" as he was a royal prince in his own right rather than the title being the result of his marriage to Elizabeth.

20 plus years ago I might have said no way. Now, with the passing of time, I think she should be. She’s Charles’ wife, probably a decent step mother to William and Harvey and I’ve warmed to er.
That said, it will make not one difference to my life whatever happens.