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 are plenty of articles implying that QEII intended Camilla to be known as (and referred to as) Queen Consort rather than Queen.

https://www.livemint.com/news/world/camilla-goes-against-queen-elizabeth-refuses-queen-consort-title-11677383561192.html

https://news.sky.com/story/why-camilla-will-be-crowned-during-kings-coronation-and-what-may-happen-in-simpler-ceremony-for-queen-consort-12718111

Are you seriously still worrying about the loss of empire? You're several decades too late, it happened before Charles was even born.

Articles written by shoddy journalists as ignorant of standard protocol as lots of the general public.

The winner takes it all, I guess: the title, the crown, the trust fund, somebody else's husband. Not a nice person.

coming back to agree that Diana was sort of pretty, she wore awful clothes before she married, that didn't flatter her tall willowy figure. (they were pretty standard Sloane Ranger clothes though).
That engagement outfit!! Like something Thatcher would wear. She gradually developed a personal style (presumably with the help of stylists) and learned very quickly where cameras were and what her best angles/poses were. All very normal - you'd go mad otherwise i think, seeing unflattering photos of yourself everywhere.

Being tall and extremely slim made her a great clothes horse - exactly the kind of figure designers love, so it's no wonder she looked glam. But i don't think she was sexy (I don't fancy women so i don't know). My favourite photos of her were the Vogue ones in black slim-fit trousers and a black polo necked jumper. Stunning, cleverly done photos.

As for Camilla? she seems fine to me, rather more down-to-earth than we're used to from that family, but never fear, the next king and his brood are more in the pole-up-the-backside mould of royal family. The next few years will be interesting for royal watchers and the indifferent (me) alike.

So by that standard you have to judge Diana as Not A Nice Person as well.

Diana lost more than she gained. She was aware of her role as a brood mare for the royals but she wanted to be respected and valued by the person to whom she was married. When it all blew up, she went a bit slash and burn and then died before she could make amends and apologise to those people she had trodden on in the short term. A sudden, abrupt end to her life meant unfinished business and much left unsaid that a longer lifespan would have allowed her to put right.

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

No they were referred to as just Queen. Unlike Camilla, who had been referred to as Camilla, Queen Consort since the Queen’s death.

I agree.

@CabernetSauvignon No….. in the 1500s when Henry ruled there was empire today there is the commonwealth…

Ive double checked royal protocol. Queen consort = married to a king. Queen on its own up to now is interchangeable only with queen regnant. Public shorthand is different eg princess Kate/Meghan, neither of whom hold those titles or queen consort Elizabeth being referred to just as queen.

It's really funny seeing all these random anonymous posters arguing about something that Elizabeth II and Charles are openly contradicted them on in their public acknowledgement of a clear difference between the two and the decision to change them. Who to believe, let me think 😆

This ^. I am neither a Clarence House PR or someone who has cheated - it would actually a deal breaker for me in my own relationship – but I cannot stand the very un-feminist pile on of a woman who has been happily married now for 18 years.

Excuse grammatical errors. Autocorrect is a nuisance.

Fair enough! I respect your consistency on the subject.

Where does one find 'royal protocol' in order to check it? What is the written source for 'royal protocol'?

No Queen in British history has ever been officially referred to as 'Queen Consort'. They've always just been Her Majesty The Queen.

Yes.

Well, at least you admit not understanding common turns of phrase. It means we don't have to argue about the fact that you missed the point.

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.

As long as the monarchy is in place, it's got rules. They're not dependent on you approving of the monarch and his wife on a personal level.

So we all have to be liberal now?

Yes, you did say you take everything completely literally... But do you prefer regression and sexual oppression? Because that's what it is when one demands thar the state punish people one way or another for indiscretions, which basically is what you're calling for. Incidentally, who do you think will get the shitty end of that stick - men or women?

I suppose a lot of this comes down to whether you think everyone who ever had an affair, no matter what the circumstances or the outcome, is such an irredeemably Bad Person that they should be punished forever, or whether you have a slightly more nuanced view of it.

If it's the former, well, you're allowed to think that and nobody will convince you otherwise, but that's a lot of people you're attempting to condemn to permanent misery...and there comes a point where the motivations start looking questionable because it's hard to see it as anything other than displaced vengeance.

The wives of the last three kings, the Queeens Consort Alexandra, Mary and Elizabeth were known just as Queen Alexandra, Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth. And were crowned. This just isn't a change or contradiction no matter how many try to argue it is

Oh crikey @DarrellRiversCriminalBehaviourOrder

Could you leave off and go and bicker with somebody else.

I took it literally because I am autistic and your babbling on is a bit incessant.

The survival of the monarchy long term is very much based on public opinion. We pay for them.

I prefer that people who are representing the country have strength of character and decency towards others. What Charles and Camilla did showed poor character and indecency.

The decent thing to do considering what is at stake and their colourful history would have been to step aside themselves to allow a more palatable couple next in line to take over.

That’s not the state punishing them. That’s them taking ownership of their transgressions and prioritising the U.K. and commonwealth. A voluntary decision.

But they’ve decided to press on with their own agenda shamelessly throughout because they are selfish people. Which was apparent when they conducted the affair in the first place. They want to be king and queen and all the money and status that comes with.

We differ in our opinion. I can respect yours, please respect mine.

And @DarrellRiversCriminalBehaviourOrder

I in no way prefer sexual oppression.

By all means people can go out and shag whomever they want, provided all over 18 and consenting.

But there is a difference in being sexually liberated, and being an absolute bastard of a person who cheats on their spouse, traumatises their children, fails in their obligations and tears people’s lives apart in order to get their end away.

There is a more dignified way of handling problems in a marriage - you work on it, or you leave.

That is my personal opinion. I don’t think we should be lowering standards and saying adultery is ok, it isn’t.

They’ve tried to turn it into a love story but it’s just so sordid the lot of it.

Now please, enough let some other people discuss.

No matter what you say it’s really not going to change my point of view or invalidate it, anymore than I could change/invalidate yours.

Ask the posters who say royal protocol means queen consort is the same as Queen. They know where to find it too. I noticed no one challenged them.

Only after she died.

The key phrase here being 'known as' - just like princess Kate. The Windsors obviously see a big difference.

Could you leave off and go and bicker with somebody else.

I could. Could you? Is it only bickering when others do it but you're just fine?

I took it literally because I am autistic and your babbling on is a bit incessant.

I was starting to think you might be, so thank you for confirming. Again, why are your lengthy responses just fine but mine are babbling?

The decent thing to do considering what is at stake and their colourful history would have been to step aside themselves to allow a more palatable couple next in line to take over.

Their history has nothing to do with the system in which they have a certain place. There's no inconsistency with an adulterous king and his former mistress, now wife, being crowned. Your view that they should be punished forever for it is not really relevant since the system isn't personal. As republicans often point out, it's literally hereditary so personal indiscretions don't come into it. And abdication isn't the easy and uncontroversial solution that you think it is.

But they’ve decided to press on with their own agenda shamelessly throughout because they are selfish people.

They've adhered completely to law, tradition and convention. If they were that self serving, they'd have married in the 1970s.

We differ in our opinion. I can respect yours, please respect mine.

You do not respect my opinion at all. You've called it bickering, babbling, and ordered that I stop. You simply want to speak and not be countered or contradicted. That is not what respecting opinions looks like.