Page 29 | 'Queen' Camilla

Replitad · 2023-04-04T22:12:17+00:00

I wouldn't have called myself a republican before now but I think the 'Queen' Camilla thing has tipped me over the edge. Pretty audacious considering their history and I think a lot of the public won't agree. I certainly won't be celebrating or even watching coronation.

TheObstinateHeadstrongGirl · 06/04/2023 20:09

Mooshamoo · 06/04/2023 19:57

I'm gonna go along and protest. My poster will say "down with Camilla"

Better call Scotland Yard, sounds like a national security issue. Not Diana (Camilla’s actual name) will be quaking in her boots I’m sure 😂

Hbh17 · 06/04/2023 20:14

For the umpteenth time, if Mr Jones marries Miss Smith she is legally entitled to be Mrs Jones.
The wife of the King is the Queen.
Previous Queen Consorts have been Queen Elizabeth, Queen Mary, Queen Alexandra etc.
So Queen Camilla is totally correct.
The late Queen intended her status to be Queen Consort - as opposed to Queen Regnant (of which there have only been six - Mary I, Elizabeth I, Mary II, Anne, Victoria, Elizabeth II).
The palace have been using Queen Consort since September to avoid confusion with the late Queen, but it is not actually a proper title, more of a job description.
She has been Queen Camilla since Septmber 2022, just as she became Princess of Wales upon her marriage, but just chose to use a subsidiary title in that case.

Whether you like Queen Camilla or not is irrelevant - this is just how it works. Although I have no idea why we should criticise a woman in her 70s who has ended up with a job she never wanted, and has suffered ridiculous levels of abuse. The King and Queen had unfortunate and unhappy first marriages that is all - so, in that way, they are very like large numbers of their subjects.

Mooshamoo · 06/04/2023 20:40

TheObstinateHeadstrongGirl · 06/04/2023 20:09

Better call Scotland Yard, sounds like a national security issue. Not Diana (Camilla’s actual name) will be quaking in her boots I’m sure 😂

Show quote history

Well it WAS a joke.

I was just talking with my mother about Camilla and I joked that with her that I would go along to the coronation and protest.

It would be funny actually to along and mildly protest. With a funny poster. ...there is a lot of jokes that could be made..i like the humour in these things.

Though I live far away, and I actually couldn't be arsed going a long way to protest. If you live nearby please do.

Think how funny it would be to see it on the news

Mooshamoo · 06/04/2023 20:40

*to go along and mildly protest

Mooshamoo · 06/04/2023 20:42

Hbh17 · 06/04/2023 20:14

For the umpteenth time, if Mr Jones marries Miss Smith she is legally entitled to be Mrs Jones.
The wife of the King is the Queen.
Previous Queen Consorts have been Queen Elizabeth, Queen Mary, Queen Alexandra etc.
So Queen Camilla is totally correct.
The late Queen intended her status to be Queen Consort - as opposed to Queen Regnant (of which there have only been six - Mary I, Elizabeth I, Mary II, Anne, Victoria, Elizabeth II).
The palace have been using Queen Consort since September to avoid confusion with the late Queen, but it is not actually a proper title, more of a job description.
She has been Queen Camilla since Septmber 2022, just as she became Princess of Wales upon her marriage, but just chose to use a subsidiary title in that case.

Whether you like Queen Camilla or not is irrelevant - this is just how it works. Although I have no idea why we should criticise a woman in her 70s who has ended up with a job she never wanted, and has suffered ridiculous levels of abuse. The King and Queen had unfortunate and unhappy first marriages that is all - so, in that way, they are very like large numbers of their subjects.

Yes, but for the umpteenth time, people are annoyed because when Charles and Camilla for married, they issued a statement saying that she would never be known as queen.
Because people would not have accepted the marriage, otherwise.

I remember even thinking at the time that , "they are just saying this now to get us to accept the marriage. They are lying. He will backtrack on this later on".

And he did.

DappledThings · 06/04/2023 21:11

Yes, but for the umpteenth time, people are annoyed because when Charles and Camilla for married, they issued a statement saying that she would never be known as queen
For the umpteenth time no they didn't. They issued a statement saying it was intended she would be known as Princes Consort. Stating a current intention doesn't preclude a later change. The change from Princess to Queen was then announced years later, not by Charles but by the current Queen herself.

BMW6 · 06/04/2023 21:18

You don't live that far away Mooshamoo.

You could raid your piggy bank or ask your Mammy for some extra pocket money to cover your boat and train fare. You may have enough for another burger and chips.

TheObstinateHeadstrongGirl · 06/04/2023 22:34

they issued a statement saying that she would never be known as queen.

No, they didn’t.

Because people would not have accepted the marriage, otherwise

Its not up to anyone else ever to ‘accept’ anyone else’s marriage let alone a complete strangers

Mooshamoo · 06/04/2023 22:58

TheObstinateHeadstrongGirl · 06/04/2023 22:34

they issued a statement saying that she would never be known as queen.

No, they didn’t.

Because people would not have accepted the marriage, otherwise

Its not up to anyone else ever to ‘accept’ anyone else’s marriage let alone a complete strangers

They didn't accept Princess Margaret 's marriage. Because she wanted to marry a divorced man. She was made to choose between being a princess or marriage to him. She couldn't be both

She was only one generation behind Charles.

Charles is of course allowed to marry whoever he wants. The question is should he be allowed to marry his mistress and also be king/ head of church of England.

TheObstinateHeadstrongGirl · 06/04/2023 23:12

Mooshamoo · 06/04/2023 22:58

They didn't accept Princess Margaret 's marriage. Because she wanted to marry a divorced man. She was made to choose between being a princess or marriage to him. She couldn't be both

She was only one generation behind Charles.

Charles is of course allowed to marry whoever he wants. The question is should he be allowed to marry his mistress and also be king/ head of church of England.

Show quote history

Christ Almighty, Princess Margaret was with Peter Townsend 60 years ago! 45 years before Charles married Camilla. The likes of YOU would be the first to whine of the RF didn’t love with the times.

Also, Charles hasn’t broken any rules of the COfE. He had no living former spouse - Peter Townsend did.

AFlockOfTigers · 06/04/2023 23:28

TheObstinateHeadstrongGirl · 06/04/2023 23:12

Christ Almighty, Princess Margaret was with Peter Townsend 60 years ago! 45 years before Charles married Camilla. The likes of YOU would be the first to whine of the RF didn’t love with the times.

Also, Charles hasn’t broken any rules of the COfE. He had no living former spouse - Peter Townsend did.

Show quote history

Camilla had a living spouse though. That's why they were married in a civil ceremony.

BMW6 · 07/04/2023 00:03

The question is should he be allowed to marry his mistress and also be king/ head of church of England.

PMSL
You so obviously are no student of history.
Or even from this planet.

Who created the Church of England?
Why?

This stuff is covered in schools. Thousands of Books. Innumerable films.

How the fuck has it all escaped you?

BMW6 · 07/04/2023 00:08

Couple of clues for you to Google Mooshamoo

Henry VIII
Anne Boleyn

Poorlittlepoorgirl · 07/04/2023 00:18

I think camilla is the most normal one out of them all. She’s more than earned her place. She remained dignified and strong through decades of hatred from the press and country.
she had Charles first and she fought for the man she loved and wanted and made him happy ever since. Give her a break

Ponoka7 · 07/04/2023 00:20

Mooshamoo · 06/04/2023 22:58

They didn't accept Princess Margaret 's marriage. Because she wanted to marry a divorced man. She was made to choose between being a princess or marriage to him. She couldn't be both

She was only one generation behind Charles.

Charles is of course allowed to marry whoever he wants. The question is should he be allowed to marry his mistress and also be king/ head of church of England.

Show quote history

What changed was the CoE accepting divorce in 2002. Like many of his citizens, our King has had an affair and married his mistress. I'd rather have the realism of everyday life, reflected by royalty than the fairytale bs that caused him to marry Diana. When the wedding was announced, we all should have been thinking 'hang on, the age difference, him being her older sister's ex, them not knowing each other at all, them barely meeting up' etc etc. The Spencer's had a lot to answer for.

ToWhitToWhoo · 07/04/2023 00:59

Mooshamoo · 06/04/2023 22:58

They didn't accept Princess Margaret 's marriage. Because she wanted to marry a divorced man. She was made to choose between being a princess or marriage to him. She couldn't be both

She was only one generation behind Charles.

Charles is of course allowed to marry whoever he wants. The question is should he be allowed to marry his mistress and also be king/ head of church of England.

Show quote history

Well, considering that the Church of England came into existence because the King wanted to get divorced and marry his mistress, I think it's a bit late to set rules about that!

And many kings of the past have had mistresses and awful marriages.

AskMeMore · 07/04/2023 01:00

You say that as if it is generally accepted that it is fine to be married and have an affair and then marry your mistress. It really is not seen as okay by most people.
And even on MN whenever someone talks about this kind of set up they are always warned that the new wife has created a position for a mistress.

QueenMegan · 07/04/2023 01:03

It should be me.

ToWhitToWhoo · 07/04/2023 01:16

AskMeMore · 07/04/2023 01:00

You say that as if it is generally accepted that it is fine to be married and have an affair and then marry your mistress. It really is not seen as okay by most people.
And even on MN whenever someone talks about this kind of set up they are always warned that the new wife has created a position for a mistress.

It may not be 'fine', but it's never been a disqualification from being a King. The only thing that's changed over time is reduction in the double standard, whereby women were held to a higher standard than men.

AskMeMore · 07/04/2023 01:27

Oh I know a hereditary monarchy means we get who is born first, It has nothing to do with merit

TheObstinateHeadstrongGirl · 07/04/2023 02:28

QueenMegan · 07/04/2023 01:03

It should be me.

🤣🤣🤣

TheObstinateHeadstrongGirl · 07/04/2023 02:29

AskMeMore · 07/04/2023 01:27

Oh I know a hereditary monarchy means we get who is born first, It has nothing to do with merit

Let’s thank our lucky stars Andrew wasn’t born first the

QueenMeghan · 07/04/2023 02:34

QueenMegan · 07/04/2023 01:03

It should be me.

No it should be me

ArdeteiMasazxu · 07/04/2023 05:24

TheObstinateHeadstrongGirl · 07/04/2023 02:29

Let’s thank our lucky stars Andrew wasn’t born first the

Show quote history

You're assuming that birth order doesn't affect either personality or the amount of effort that is put into public perception.

If Andrew had been born first but with the same personality, weaknesses and desires - firstly his status as heir would have a huge effect on what he'd have the opportunity to do, and the amount of resources available to be poured into a cover-up/whitewash, if needed, would be orders of magnitude better.

Charles may fundamentally be no nicer a person than Andrew but his more privileged status (a) makes it easier for him to fulfil his desires and (b) gives the establishment more motive to ensure a positive PR spin on everything.

It's a hugely dysfunctional family and must be horrible to live in, but it is the established role of the younger brother of the heir to be less responsible and diligent than their elder brother, to live a life of debauchery, and to be denigrated in the press as a scoundrel regularly, in order to make their elder brother look good. I am sure this will be just as true of Prince Louis in a couple of decades time.

Possiblynotever · 07/04/2023 06:51

So, basically, we are all happy with a "king" and "queen" who had an affair before and throught his "fairyrale" marriage, bullying a 20 year old girl when they were well in their thirties. It's OK. The reasoning behind this is "shit happens, move on" and " she makes him happy " ( the irony of the sexism here...)
I have never seen MN move on on mistresses, but hey, Camilla obviously has different qualities.