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.

"There was no internet/global media and the Empire/Commonwealth wasn’t falling apart…."

Again, this is a fundamental misunderstanding. The Commonwealth is nothing like the Empire. Its a voluntary association of nations. 14 of them are Commonwealth Realms - so have the King as Head of State. The other 40 are independent nations, many ofnthem have no colonial links to the UK. Commonwealth Realms are able to choose to become Republics, they can still remain Commonwealth States. Charles has said he agrees with their choice to become Republics.

The Commonwealth is growing, not falling apart.

Both Anne Boelyn and Jane Seymour were Henry's mistresses in an emotional (Jane at least) and Physical (Anne) form prior to their marriage to him. Jane was with him whilst Anne was executed. They got engaged 3 days after.

Many also miss

In 1532, Anne Boleyn became pregnant with the king's child. She was married to Henry on 25 January 1533 so that the baby could be a legitimate heir. Henry's marriage to Catherine of Aragon was finally annulled in the following May by Archbishop Cranmer, thus ending the first of Henry's 6 marriages (Wikipedia entry re Catherine of Aragon)

The Church of England became independent under King Henry VIII in 1534(Wikipedia entry re Church of England)

With Wallis she wasn't just divorced she was twice divorced. Earl Winfield Spencer Jr. (m. 1916; div. 1927)
Ernest Aldrich Simpson (m. 1928; div. 1937)
Prince Edward, Duke of Windsor
(m. 1937; died 1972)

She was also not well.liked and was not.felt.she would make a good queen.
Edward consulted with Stanley Baldwin (the PM) on a way to both marry Wallis and keep the throne. Edward suggested a morgannatic marriage in which he would remain king but Wallis would not be queen, and their children could not become the monarch. This was rejected.

Charles and Camilla however were not rejected my parlement or cofE they were permitted to marry in a register office and have a church blessing.

Hence yes she should be crowned and was crowned Queen. Personally I am happy they have moved forward.

I too have sometimes wondered what attitudes might be like if Diana and Sarah Ferguson's looks were 'reversed'.

I also think that in the months leading up to her death, people were loosing favour with Diana. She was beginning to live a celebrity lifestyle, lots of holidays, glitz and glamour, and people were getting fed up of it. Her untimely death catapulted her into a Saint. Yes, she did do good stuff - AIDS sufferer, landmines come to mind, but had she lived, I think we may have a different image of her. Her halo was beginning to slip.

@DarrellRiversCriminalBehaviourOrder

You’re saying “you have to let it go”, “you have to accept it”… says who? You’re trying to domineer and force me to agree and I don’t.

I’m not disputing the actions of Henry VIII.

But I think it’s Poppycock to compare his role as a Monarch with Charles in the modern day.

Henry VIII had absolute power, he established and expanded Empire.

Charles is a figurehead for the country internationally, has no power and has to grapple with the remnants of the Commonwealth and keeping it all together.

In short it did not matter a shit what Henry VIII did personally because he still had power, popularity wasn’t in it.

Charles’ sway over the commonwealth is a popularity contest. If people don’t believe in or like the monarchy, they are more inclined to get rid of them.

Getting rid of Henry VIII wasn’t happening now was it?

The context is entirely different.

I agree with this.

She also had very.good PR advisers where as Charles at the time didn't. That changed though imo and he has become.more aware on this area

Obviously it’s voluntary, but no less important.

I disagree, Australia and many others wanting to go and not wanting a Royal as figurehead.

You’re saying “you have to let it go”, “you have to accept it”… says who?

No, I said you didn't have to accept it but that didn't make it any less true. "You have to let it go" is just a turn of phrase meaning there's no point hanging on to a 40 year old affair that's now come as good as possible and has nothing to do with you. Are you always so very literal?

In short it did not matter a shit what Henry VIII did personally because he still had power, popularity wasn’t in it.

This makes no sense. If Henry VIII had power then it mattered very much what he did personally. He changed the state religion and government to suit what he did personally. If Charles has none then he's the one whose personal life doesn't matter.

Charles’ sway over the commonwealth is a popularity contest.

Who's he competing with?

The context is entirely different.

The rules of the church are the same regarding whether a man who was once unfaithful to his wife can head it up. And like I said before, punishing people for sexual indiscretion (where consensual and between adults) is never a liberal step.

@MargotBamborough

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

Was I the only heterosexual man of about her age who didn't think Diana was that fanciable? I felt sorry for her from the moment she appeared on the scene, but to me she appeared a bland, milk-faced posh girl that you wouldn't particularly notice in a wine bar along the King's Road.

NZ, Australia and other overseas realms may wellsoon choose to become republics and no longer have the British monarch as HoS.

However, I doubt they would leave the Commonwealth. Of course, if they do, they can leave any time they want. It's a voluntary organisation.

@DarrellRiversCriminalBehaviourOrder

Are you always so very literal?

Yes.

This makes no sense.

With power you can do what you want. With no power and reliant on public good will, their perception of you matters more in relation to the survival of monarchy.

Look at the PR machine they have going. It matters.

Who's he competing with?

Those who would wish to abolish the monarchy, have republic/no figurehead/commonwealth.

And like I said before, punishing people for sexual indiscretion (where consensual and between adults) is never a liberal step.

So we all have to be liberal now?

Don’t think they should be punished. Just think they ought to have stepped aside.

I don’t fancy celebrating and revering people whose behaviour is totally out of line with my beliefs/morality, I find it abhorrent. I’m sorry, but that is my opinion.

I agree, people do have short memories. People were really sympathetic towards Diana after the Martin Bashir interview but it waned after the divorce came through and by the time of her death, when she flitting around the globe on holiday, the mood was far less supportive. It was almost as if the public resented her flourishing, stoked by the racist tabloids who hated the fact she was dating Dodi F.

She was certainly extremely beautiful, glamorous and photogenic, but possibly not overtly "sexy"...that wouldn't go with the role so well. I do think you'd notice her because she was radiant.

So if you had an adult child who was desperately miserable in their marriage and fell in love with someone else who was perfect for them and ended the marriage to be with that person, you'd cut them off and refuse to attend their second wedding because of your beliefs/morality?

There simply is no such thing as a lower or different status King's spouse called the Queen Consort. You've invented that all by yourself.

It’s not literally a different status no. But up until the coronation she had been referred to by the royal family and the press as Queen Consort, as per QEII’s wishes. I had taken QEII’s words to imply that is how she should be referred to -unlike previous Queen Consorts who were only referred to as Queen.

We’ll never know now. I’d be interested in what some of the so called ‘royal experts’ think. If I’ve completely got the wrong end of the stick then fair enough 😁

The late Queen Elizabeth II stated she wanted Camilla to be Queen Consort. That is what she now is. The form of address for a Queen Consort IS Her Majesty Queen Name. Just like The wife (and Queen Consort) of the last King who was addressed as Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth.

She didn’t get “the second” added as she was consort not regnant.

No Queen Consort has ever been addressed as “Queen Consort Name”.

The Queen could have gone if she'd wanted. It was all quite distasteful how she didn't want to play any part in bringing the relationship between crown and church kicking and screaming into the 20th century (let alone the 21st)

'Radiance' is not an objectively identifiable quality. Or, to put it another way, no she wasn't.

Neither was she extremely beautiful. She was very ordinary. And she certainly wasn't intrinsically glamorous. Look at the early photos of her. Wealth and a lot of stylists may have made her glamorous later on. And that's because glamour is the product of money and expertise.

I agree, Cheryl Cole is another example of that.

Have all the OWs of Mumsnet mobilized to swamp Camilla discussions with pro-adultery posts or is Clarence House PR all over this page? 🙄
The number of people who are supportive of Camilla whom I can personally identify is definitely in single figures.

The Queen didn't attend the civil ceremony of C&C but was at the dedication service in St George's chapel afterwards led by the archbishop of Canterbury and was also at the after party. She would have been advised against attending the civil ceremony because it would conflict with her being head of the CofE. So nothing to froth about.

I think more likely Mumsnet is full of feminists who recognise there is no moral justification for condemning Camilla whilst accepting Charles, and as a mindset it's actually quite dangerous.

i don't know where you were in the 90s but this is the exact opposite of my experience. Even in the 80s seatbelts in the back of cars, and child seats, were widely used. Massively so

@Inkpotlover

You’ve missed what I said earlier re respect for the marriage and yourself.

miserable marriage -> divorce -> meet new partner and remarry FINE

If you enter into an affair while you are still married and not separated you are clearly not focused on your marriage or children and are a person of poor character.

If my DC ever behaved like that I would be disgusted, I would hope I’d brought them up better.

All irrelevant as Diana was travelling in a car with seatbelts.