To think Camilla should not have been crowned Queen

[Viviennemary]

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.

Diana was not going to be Head of the Church of England or Head of State. That pair of annointed with holy oil and feted after their years of adultery is absolutely shameful.

What, so you’re complaining about Camilla being Queen but not Charles being King, because his arranged marriage failed and he went back to the woman he actually loved? Bit one sided isn’t it? Camilla isn’t anointed, nor is she Head of the Church. And given how the C of E started, their “no divorce” stance was always wildly hypocritical.

Do you think all the kings who were unfaithful should have been booted out for it, or is it just this particular queen you’re griping about?

If you don't want to punish them or lord over morality, then just accept that this is the system, it's not personal, there's no need to interfere with 1000+ years of precedent and Charles isn't "putting himself first" by doing what is fully expected of him.

Viv, when are you going to work out that an adultererous head of state was the first head of the C of E? Shagging someone else while his wife lived was literally the reason for it. Or do you think Charles is the first king to have had an affair?

I think the whole thing is a load of rubbish. So I don’t really care who is queen, as I don’t think we should have one.

However I also think the main reason Edward VIII had to abdicate was probably the fact he was a Nazi, and the divorcee bit was rather convenient.

I think the issue here is. The Queen was around for 70 years and her husband was never king. To me that means he was never her equal.
So people thought that camilla couldn't be queen because Philip didn't have the title.
Queen consort sounds like not the proper Queen like Elizabeth was (I.e born into the monarchy) and as its a newish term due to how long Elizabeth was on the throne, people accepted that camilla would be Queen consort but didn't think that was the same title as Queen.
So now with camilla being Queen people are thinking they have been tricked and lied to about her position.
Although I am completely confused how they can bring in all these modern changes but still think king outrank a Queen.
Little bit off topic but why don't royalty rule together? If it's king and Queen shouldn't they both rule?

Neither of them rules. We are a constitutional monarchy and the government rules.

To me that means he was never her equal.

He wasn't. The whole thing is based on hierarchy and a line of succession.

So people thought that camilla couldn't be queen because Philip didn't have the title.

I don't think that's why. I think people who dislike it (apart from those who are just completely anti-monarchy) dislike it because they dislike her personally and think the rules should be dependent on that.

its a newish term

It really isn't.

So now with camilla being Queen people are thinking they have been tricked and lied to about her position.

Hopefully the information will be better disseminated so people realise a queen can be regnant or consort, but either way she is a queen.

I’m sorry but I don’t accept or like any of it.

All this poppycock about Kings 500yrs ago having affairs.

There was no internet/global media and the Empire/Commonwealth wasn’t falling apart…. I think there’s a lot to lose here and sticking an unpopular couple with a complex history at the top of the RF it concerns me.

At least it’s not Andrew, small mercies.

@Mydpisgrumpierthanyours only one has royal blood. The spouse is the support act.

You aren't required to like it. I suppose you can refuse to accept it but that won't make it any less true.

It's not "poppycock" - what exactly is your rebuttal? It's historical fact and it's literally the reason the CoE exists. If it was founded by an adulterer so he could place himself at the head of it, there's clearly no reason an adulterer can't be head of it.*

You say they're unpopular but the streets were thronged, the viewing rates were high and I couldn't get any coronation tat in the shops on Friday when the kids asked for it; it was all sold out. Besides, if you have a monarchy then the whole point is that it's not a popularity contest. You get who you're given. That's literally how it works.

• And I think we would all agree that out of Henry VIII and Charles III, Charles is the "better" adulterer. He should have married Camilla from the start, she was his only mistress and now they've been married longer than Charles and Diana were. There comes a point where, while you might not ever like or approve of it, you just have to let it go.

Well said! I find it astonishing how posters cannot let go of something that has no bearing on their everyday life. Even the break up of the Commonwealth, which appears to underpin this poster's concern about C and C heading it, would have next to no impact on people personally! What a hill to die on.

@DarrellRiversCriminalBehaviourOrder

You cannot force me to come around to your way of thinking.

I have my opinion, you have yours.

@Inkpotlover can people not respect others opinions.

At a time of overpopulation and climate change causing issues with resources, and Europe having war… I do think cohesion - like the Commonwealth is important.

Anything that undermines that isn’t in everyone’s best interests.

Almost 90 years ago

The world has changed. A lot

He is not a widower

The only qualification for being Queen is being married to the King.

Camilla is the King's wife, therefore she is Queen.

Why do you think that a disagreement amounts to trying to force you into anything? Are you trying to force me to agree with you?

You have your opinion, and it's based on a complete misunderstanding of what monarchy, marriage and the CoE are. You aren't obliged to change your opinion, but you can't expect people not to correct you on the facts about it. It's not, for example, "poppycock" that the CoE was founded by a blatant, serial adulterer and there's therefore no reason an adulterer can't head it.

You're the one not respecting other's opinions! You described the historical fact of the CoE as "poppycock" (though you never explained why) and you think someone sharing a view you don't like is somehow disrespecting your view.

You can respect an opinion while still questioning it!

I agree cohesion is important in world events but the Commonwealth is not ruled by the Monarchy beyond a figurehead sense and therefore it has no tangible impact on the governance that's needed to keep it together. So the King undermining it (which I don't agree with anyway) is a moot point in the overall scheme of things.

However I also think the main reason Edward VIII had to abdicate was probably the fact he was a Nazi, and the divorcee bit was rather convenient.

Agree totally, I tried to say that earlier but not very well! They were both Nazi apologists but the fact that Wallis was divorced was a more palatable reason I suppose.

The RF seem to have done a lot of media work on portraying the Charles and Camilla relationship as the love that could not be but eventually won through. Well Charles could have married Camilla early on but she at the point wasn't important enough to him to do that, the throne was. The greatest of all things to Charles was obviously not love.

There's also a documentary about his other mistress , an Australian lady, called Kanga.

The RF chose to drag a naive 19 year old into a life she was unprepared and ultimately unsuited for because she was a virgin. She was essentially a walking womb. It showed poor judgement on the part of the entire RF including the then queen.

It might sound like I'm a republican, I'm not. I don't think there's much real benefit to getting rid of the RF. And who would fill the void? Some awful celebrity?

It might sound like I'm a massive Diana fan, again I'm not. I did feel immensely sorry for her, she was just a tool to the RF and often seemed adrift in her own life.

Charles for me personally lacks gravitas, comes across as spoiled and cantankerous. In my opinion he massively lacks moral fibre if he could not fight for the woman he 'loved'. Also who can forget the tampon phone calls or the time he was caught on camera slagging Nicholas witchell off (a man just doing his job).

There's so much water under the bridge with this particular generation of the RF, and I think that is the crux of the matter. Charles being divorced is a complete red herring. if Anne was being crowned (herself divorced). I think she would enjoy much more universal respect. Whereas I don't think Charles will be a popular king.

@Panteranoir Was Kanga Charles's mistress or would girlfriend be the better description as wasn't this before he got married?

I'm interested if there's be all this anger if Diana had looked like Princess Fiona? I do think that has a lot to do with it.

Absolutely. People fell in love with her beauty, mainly.