Page 22 | To think Camilla should not have been crowned Queen

Viviennemary · 2023-05-06T15:38:44+00:00

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.

DappledThings · 07/05/2023 11:28

Alltheprettyseahorses · 07/05/2023 11:24

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

Show quote history

What do you mean Princess Kate? There isn't a Princess Kate

DarrellRiversCriminalBehaviourOrder · 07/05/2023 11:28

I in no way prefer sexual oppression.

You literally want a man to lose his job and are judging his entire character in everything because he had an affair 40 years ago. His wife also had affairs because the marriage was miserable. He has since married his mistress, who was his first and real love, and they've lasted longer than the first marriage.

That's an oppressive attitude.

DappledThings · 07/05/2023 11:34

Alltheprettyseahorses · 07/05/2023 11:24

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

Show quote history

If you really think that the late Queen's statement using the words "known as" meant that she wanted to over turn centuries of tradition and have Queen Consort used as the style 100% of the time rather than it being just the formal title used in the particular instance that's very silly. Queens Consort are known as that and as Queen Name. I'm pretty sure the Palace knew that

AnnesObstructiveFeather · 07/05/2023 11:39

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

Except for Camilla, who was referred to as Camilla, Queen Consort ever since QEII’s death. Her title was Camilla, Queen Consort on the Royal website. Up until the coronation.

Robinni · 07/05/2023 11:40

DarrellRiversCriminalBehaviourOrder · 07/05/2023 11:25

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.

Show quote history

@DarrellRiversCriminalBehaviourOrder

What I’m saying is our opinions have been trotted out over countless posts.

Your position is very clear.

My position is very clear.

They are not going to change.

So I do not see the point in engaging in this back and forth contradicting and arguing. It’s going around in circles.

DappledThings · 07/05/2023 11:41

AnnesObstructiveFeather · 07/05/2023 11:39

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

Except for Camilla, who was referred to as Camilla, Queen Consort ever since QEII’s death. Her title was Camilla, Queen Consort on the Royal website. Up until the coronation.

As were other Queens Consort in printed media prior to their coronations.

DarrellRiversCriminalBehaviourOrder · 07/05/2023 11:45

Robinni · 07/05/2023 11:40

@DarrellRiversCriminalBehaviourOrder

What I’m saying is our opinions have been trotted out over countless posts.

Your position is very clear.

My position is very clear.

They are not going to change.

So I do not see the point in engaging in this back and forth contradicting and arguing. It’s going around in circles.

Show quote history

So don't engage. Stop responding.

You keep demanding that I must respect your opinion. Bur the only person accusing anyone of poppycock, babbling and bickering, and demanding silence, is you.

If you're tired of the exchange, just don't reply. It'll mean I get the last word, but surely that doesn't bother you?

zingally · 07/05/2023 11:50

I'm not the biggest fan of her, but did laugh at how abrupt her crowning was.
He came at her with the crown, sideways, really quickly. She had this really funny "What?!? NOW?!" expression on her face.

I think she anticipated this slow, stately crowning - like Charles' - but hers was "oh, ere ya go." And it messed up her hair. ;)

Robinni · 07/05/2023 11:50

DarrellRiversCriminalBehaviourOrder · 07/05/2023 11:28

I in no way prefer sexual oppression.

You literally want a man to lose his job and are judging his entire character in everything because he had an affair 40 years ago. His wife also had affairs because the marriage was miserable. He has since married his mistress, who was his first and real love, and they've lasted longer than the first marriage.

That's an oppressive attitude.

@DarrellRiversCriminalBehaviourOrder

…… he is not becoming an investment banker……. It is not a job.

He is becoming Monarch which is a state of being, with constitutional and representational duties.

It’s massively important and he should have had this at the forefront of his mind all along.

His first wife did not have the same birthright or responsibility and only started having affairs following appalling treatment.

Anyway I do not wish to engage with this further or have my opinion talked down or dismissed.

It is how I personally feel, everyone else is entitled to their own opinion.

Robinni · 07/05/2023 11:54

DarrellRiversCriminalBehaviourOrder · 07/05/2023 11:45

So don't engage. Stop responding.

You keep demanding that I must respect your opinion. Bur the only person accusing anyone of poppycock, babbling and bickering, and demanding silence, is you.

If you're tired of the exchange, just don't reply. It'll mean I get the last word, but surely that doesn't bother you?

Show quote history

@DarrellRiversCriminalBehaviourOrder

You win.

Charles and Camilla are wonderful.

We should all bow down and not question their being in the position they are in whatsoever. Because there are rules and it’s nothing personal.

Afterall, Henry VIII was adulterous so Charles should be too, he should carry on in this vein and apply everything done to Royal wives in the 1500s as standard practice. But that wouldn’t be right now would it.

DarrellRiversCriminalBehaviourOrder · 07/05/2023 11:59

Robinni · 07/05/2023 11:50

@DarrellRiversCriminalBehaviourOrder

…… he is not becoming an investment banker……. It is not a job.

He is becoming Monarch which is a state of being, with constitutional and representational duties.

It’s massively important and he should have had this at the forefront of his mind all along.

His first wife did not have the same birthright or responsibility and only started having affairs following appalling treatment.

Anyway I do not wish to engage with this further or have my opinion talked down or dismissed.

It is how I personally feel, everyone else is entitled to their own opinion.

Show quote history

I thought you had decided there was no point in continuing this exchange?

He is becoming Monarch which is a state of being, with constitutional and representational duties.

Yes. That's why abdication isn't this easy, apolitical solution that you think it is. It's highly destabilising and would be seen as a huge rejection of the country. Given that no other king has ever had to abdicate over his former adultery (and I'm not sure if any other king ever made good with it as much as he has), there's no reason to do it. His affair was not honourable but it had context, it does not define his entire character and it's got nothing to do with his constitutional and representational duties.

Anyway I do not wish to engage with this further

So stop engaging.

*or have my opinion talked down or dismissed.

You're the one telling me my opinion is poppycock, bickering, babbling and ordering me to stop. Stop being so hypocritical.

DarrellRiversCriminalBehaviourOrder · 07/05/2023 12:01

Robinni · 07/05/2023 11:54

@DarrellRiversCriminalBehaviourOrder

You win.

Charles and Camilla are wonderful.

We should all bow down and not question their being in the position they are in whatsoever. Because there are rules and it’s nothing personal.

Afterall, Henry VIII was adulterous so Charles should be too, he should carry on in this vein and apply everything done to Royal wives in the 1500s as standard practice. But that wouldn’t be right now would it.

Show quote history

I thought you wanted to stop engaging?

Afterall, Henry VIII was adulterous so Charles should be too

No dear, the founder of the CoE was adulterous so adultery isn't an impediment to heading it.

Can't even make sense of the rest of the stuff here. Doesn't correspond to anything anyone has said. You keep saying you don't want to engage so why are you engaging?

Robinni · 07/05/2023 12:01

Love to you

@DarrellRiversCriminalBehaviourOrder

Have a wonderful day! 👑

DarrellRiversCriminalBehaviourOrder · 07/05/2023 12:04

Robinni · 07/05/2023 12:01

Love to you

@DarrellRiversCriminalBehaviourOrder

Have a wonderful day! 👑

I will, thanks. Taking the kids out to a coronation party shortly.

Brefugee · 07/05/2023 12:12

AnnesObstructiveFeather · 07/05/2023 11:39

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

Except for Camilla, who was referred to as Camilla, Queen Consort ever since QEII’s death. Her title was Camilla, Queen Consort on the Royal website. Up until the coronation.

but that was just so people weren't confused and thinking of Liz 2.

Inkpotlover · 07/05/2023 12:27

Robinni I've just had a thought. What about Philip's affairs? They were widely known. Should the late Queen have abdicated because her marriage was morally corrupted too?

ThinWomansBrain · 07/05/2023 12:36

MillieOns · 06/05/2023 18:08

Why, as the Queens eldest child, do you think Charles shouldn’t have been made king? 🤷🏻‍♀️

Show quote history

Because I am not a monarchist.
Would have thought that was obvious from my post.

AnnesObstructiveFeather · 07/05/2023 12:48

As were other Queens Consort in printed media prior to their coronations.

Where is the evidence of that?

DappledThings · 07/05/2023 13:10

AnnesObstructiveFeather · 07/05/2023 12:48

As were other Queens Consort in printed media prior to their coronations.

Where is the evidence of that?

Plenty of results in searchs for newspaper archives. You have to pay to see full results but you can see snippets.

It really is weird how hung up people are on thinking there has been a change that isn't actually a change of seniority or position, just style.

VickyEadieofThigh · 07/05/2023 13:14

Sissynova · 06/05/2023 17:00

So is your divorce magically undone if your ex spouse happens to die? 🙄

Show quote history

It ceases to be an issue. You are now a widow/er.

MillieOns · 07/05/2023 13:27

ThinWomansBrain · 07/05/2023 12:36

Because I am not a monarchist.
Would have thought that was obvious from my post.

Show quote history

Ah so you don’t think anyone should be King. Well tough luck!

No. That wasn’t obvious from your post

AnnesObstructiveFeather · 07/05/2023 13:48

It really is weird how hung up people are on thinking there has been a change that isn't actually a change of seniority or position, just style.

I don’t think there’s been a change in seniority or position. Just a change in style. I like Camilla. But it’s a change in style that they might have been wise to avoid.

Jonei · 07/05/2023 13:57

VickyEadieofThigh · 07/05/2023 13:14

It ceases to be an issue. You are now a widow/er.

Show quote history

How can he be a widower if he was divorced from her before she died. His wife didn't die, making him widowed. His ex wife died. He was a divorcee, not a widower.

DappledThings · 07/05/2023 13:57

AnnesObstructiveFeather · 07/05/2023 13:48

It really is weird how hung up people are on thinking there has been a change that isn't actually a change of seniority or position, just style.

I don’t think there’s been a change in seniority or position. Just a change in style. I like Camilla. But it’s a change in style that they might have been wise to avoid.

But if you agree it's only a change in style then it becomes even less important.

CabernetSauvignon · 07/05/2023 14:41

Alltheprettyseahorses · 06/05/2023 21:34

Wrong. The 2005 royal agreement stated that Camilla would be princess consort. Queen is not the same title queen consort and it is absurd to suggest they are - if they were the same Elizabeth II wouldn't have stipulated queen consort and they wouldn't have bothered dropping the consort part.

By the way, I'd recommend reading people's posts to the end as I addressed the inevitable accusation of being some kind of Diana fan. It's absolutely ridiculous.

Show quote history

It didn't state that. It stated "Mrs Parker Bowles will use the title HRH The Duchess of Cornwall after marriage. It is intended that Mrs Parker Bowles should use the title HRH The Princess Consort when The Prince of Wales accedes to The Throne." As I said, a statement of intention.

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20170729173107/www.princeofwales.gov.uk/media/press-releases/announcement-of-the-marriage-of-hrh-the-prince-of-wales-and-mrs-camilla-parker" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20170729173107/www.princeofwales.gov.uk/media/press-releases/announcement-of-the-marriage-of-hrh-the-prince-of-wales-and-mrs-camilla-parker

The only distinction in terms of the titles of queens is between Queens Regnant and Queens Consort. QEII was a Queen Regnant, every other queen in the 20th century after Queen Victoria's death was a Queen Consort, but they were all called "Queen". We are simply carrying on the same tradition. The notion that QEII invented a new lower status of Queen called a Queen Consort is completely lacking in any sort of factual foundation, and is particularly bizarre when you consider that her mother was a Queen Consort.