Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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 have been crowned Queen

612 replies

Viviennemary · 06/05/2023 16:38

She should have been Princess Consort as we were told she would be. Instead the usual airbrushing of history to try and make her acceptable by clever spinning. And positive press. Bit sickening since Edward VIII had to abdicate over marrying a divorced woman.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
Maireas · 06/05/2023 18:40

diddl · 06/05/2023 18:28

I think it would have been respectful to Prince Philip if she stayed Queen consort as he never became a king.

OMFG!

I know. Some people just don't know the basics.

roarfeckingroarr · 06/05/2023 18:41

It's 2023. Who gives a shit.

underneaththeash · 06/05/2023 18:41

I personally think Charles isn't suitable to be King and he should have abdicated, however, someone pointed out to me that Catherine and William have small children and it's maybe better if he can be king for a bit and then pass it on.

I'm not sure that people with questionable morals deserve to be king.

roarfeckingroarr · 06/05/2023 18:42

DarrellRiversCriminalBehaviourOrder · 06/05/2023 18:39

Unless the rules change, the Crown passes through direct, "legitimate" (ie, married) bloodlines. So while a gay royal married to someone of the same sex could conceivably (ha ha) use donor sperm or a surrogate, the line would not be "legitimate" because the child's two biological parents would not be married.

So no...as it stands now, no way for a same sex couple to pass on the claim to the throne.

A female queen could

Maireas · 06/05/2023 18:42

Ye gods, another Camilla bashing thread. I was never a fan but I'm feeling sorry for her now. I just don't understand. Is it all part of the Cult of St Diana the Martyr?.

IcedPurple · 06/05/2023 18:43

SisterMaryLoquacious · 06/05/2023 18:09

You don't have to crown them though. A couple of royal wives didn't get crowned because they were Catholics and hence not eligible. They sat out the coronation but were still queens.

And there is precedent for a morganatic marriage where the spouse doesn't receive the royal rank.

Either would have been possible if public opinion required it. Frankly the rules have been adjusted so many times over the years that anything is possible. But they weren't thought necessary because the overwhelming majority of the GBP are either fine with Camilla as Queen or don't give a monkeys either way.

Show quote history

Who are these Catholic queens?

Being married to a Catholic automatically excludes someone from becoming King or Queen.

IcedPurple · 06/05/2023 18:43

underneaththeash · 06/05/2023 18:41

I personally think Charles isn't suitable to be King and he should have abdicated, however, someone pointed out to me that Catherine and William have small children and it's maybe better if he can be king for a bit and then pass it on.

I'm not sure that people with questionable morals deserve to be king.

Nobody 'deserves' to be King. The only qualification is being born.

Theunamedcat · 06/05/2023 18:44

Viviennemary · 06/05/2023 16:38

She should have been Princess Consort as we were told she would be. Instead the usual airbrushing of history to try and make her acceptable by clever spinning. And positive press. Bit sickening since Edward VIII had to abdicate over marrying a divorced woman.

It was more the fact that she couldn't have kids that was an issue

CheshireCat1 · 06/05/2023 18:45

PinkLemonadee · 06/05/2023 17:13

Anne Boleyn was never a mistress. She kept putting Henry off until they married.

Show quote history

Ann Boleyn was pregnant when she married Henry.

SoupDragon · 06/05/2023 18:46

IcedPurple · 06/05/2023 18:43

Who are these Catholic queens?

Being married to a Catholic automatically excludes someone from becoming King or Queen.

Show quote history

That's no longer true (although the monarch still can't be catholic)

whumpthereitis · 06/05/2023 18:46

SisterMaryLoquacious · 06/05/2023 18:09

You don't have to crown them though. A couple of royal wives didn't get crowned because they were Catholics and hence not eligible. They sat out the coronation but were still queens.

And there is precedent for a morganatic marriage where the spouse doesn't receive the royal rank.

Either would have been possible if public opinion required it. Frankly the rules have been adjusted so many times over the years that anything is possible. But they weren't thought necessary because the overwhelming majority of the GBP are either fine with Camilla as Queen or don't give a monkeys either way.

Show quote history

And they decided not to go for any of those options, as is their right in a monarchy.

If the public wants a monarchy then said public shouldn’t be surprised when it gets a monarchy that acts, well, like a monarchy.

SisterMaryLoquacious · 06/05/2023 18:47

IcedPurple · 06/05/2023 18:43

Who are these Catholic queens?

Being married to a Catholic automatically excludes someone from becoming King or Queen.

Show quote history

Henrietta Maria and Catherine of Braganza. Pre Glorious Revolution so they could be queen, but they couldn't be crowned.

raincamepouringdown · 06/05/2023 18:47

Reallybadidea · 06/05/2023 16:49

If being divorced and having an affair doesn't preclude Charles from becoming king, why would it stop his wife from becoming queen? Just pure sexism to say Camilla should be treated differently.

100%

And I'm anti-royals.

IcedPurple · 06/05/2023 18:48

SoupDragon · 06/05/2023 18:46

That's no longer true (although the monarch still can't be catholic)

Show quote history

Yes you're right. The rule was changed recently.

But it was the case for hundreds of years, so I'm wondering who are all these post Reformation Catholic queens?

IcedPurple · 06/05/2023 18:49

SisterMaryLoquacious · 06/05/2023 18:47

Henrietta Maria and Catherine of Braganza. Pre Glorious Revolution so they could be queen, but they couldn't be crowned.

Show quote history

Thank you!

Roussette · 06/05/2023 18:50

Nimbostratus100 · 06/05/2023 16:39

she is queen. Who cares?

A lot of people actually

Maireas · 06/05/2023 18:50

I've read many books on Edward VIII, it's an area of interest to me. All the original source material points to government concerns about Edward and his political allegiance, and state security. Wallis was also a close friend of Ribbentrop, and suspicion was that R gleaned information from the red boxes and passed it on to his Nazi bosses. Edward was considered to be a high risk monarch. He was a notable Nazi sympathiser. It was less about the married woman than about his behaviour.

LolaSmiles · 06/05/2023 18:51

Charles and Diana both had affairs outside an unhappy marriage.

Charles and Camilla have been committed to each other for decades and have been married for ages.

As the wife of a king she gets crowned queen. That's how it works.

Brefugee · 06/05/2023 18:52

If you are in favour of the monarchy, you must know (and accept) that the legal wife of a king is a queen. That's how it works.
A king ranks higher than a queen which is why the legal husband of a queen isn't a king. It's shit but that's how it is.

If you don't want queen Camilla, you don't want any of it. You don't get to pick and choose, you get what you're given. Suck it up.

DarrellRiversCriminalBehaviourOrder · 06/05/2023 18:53

roarfeckingroarr · 06/05/2023 18:42

A female queen could

Show quote history

How? If she's married to a woman, she can't be married to the man whose sperm she uses.

CabernetSauvignon · 06/05/2023 18:56

hopelessbuthopeful · 06/05/2023 17:46

We couldn't possibly disagree with the Queen as she was such a fine upstanding woman paying millions to stop her son being questioned over sexual abuse allegations. Never mind just forget about that as the so called RF are above the law.

Show quote history

This is nothing to do with Andrew. OP seems to be a monarchist, otherwise she wouldn't care who the hell was Queen. Therefore I was questioning why she wanted to go against the direct wishes of the late Queen.

LouisCatorze · 06/05/2023 18:58

I doubt Diana would have hung around all this time. Look at how many times her brother has been married. She would have left Charles sooner or later, whether Camilla had been his mistress or not. Particularly as she was married so young.

Butitsnotfunnyisititsserious · 06/05/2023 18:59

A lot of people actually

Why? Because they had an affair? I hope then anyone saying it's because of their affair remembers Diana had affairs to. And hers aren't justified if his isn't. Or because she's divorced? Well so is Meghan.

Nimbostratus100 · 06/05/2023 19:00

Roussette · 06/05/2023 18:50

A lot of people actually

Show quote history

then "a lot of people" clearly dont have enough to worry about in their lives! How can anyone get all hot under the collar about a meaningless title bestowed on a complete stranger with no impact on anyones life what so ever- especially when there is no way of her NOT getting the title, even if people wanted to pretend she didnt have it

whynotwhatknot · 06/05/2023 19:03

he did say she wuld never be crowned queen but that was then i guess