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.

Because it's all related to the C of E's previous stance on the marriage of divorcees. They were only bothered if the divorced person's previous spouse was still.alive.

That's very weird. How would that work if Diana had remarried, and then died. Would that mean both Charles and Diana's (hypothetical) new husband would then both be widowers ? And erm, moving on from that, Charles could only remarry if his wife or ex wife, were dead?

I think there was more of a recognition of the reality that there really wasn't much depth to her. The public also weren't too keen on tendency use publicity when she wanted it but could go all "poor me" when she didn't; the way she was becoming a bit of a disaster vulture, always turning up if she thought there was a good photo opportunity in it; the frequent holidays at the expense of rich boyfriends; and, particularly, the affairs with married men.

That was purely to differentiate her from the the late Queen. If the queen had wanted to depart from long-held tradition that the Queen Consort is the queen, she would have had to spell that out.

For instance: from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_of_Teck -  "On 6 May 1910, Edward VII died. Mary's husband ascended the throne and she became queen consort."

Enclycopaedia Britannica heads its article about Queen Alexandra ""Queen Consort of Great Britain" - https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alexandra-queen-consort-of-Great-Britain

The Royal Family website describes the Queen mother as the first British born Queen Consort since Tudor times - https://www.royal.uk/queen-elizabeth-queen-mother

Is that enough to show you have the wrong end of the stick?

#teamcamilla all the way! I think she’s great!

Totally agree. I think it’s the start of the unravelling of the monarchy. A blended family in royalty?! step children, step grandmothers etc its all so tacky. They have shown they are not worthy of a pedestal they sit on.

It would have been a more modest approach considering the rather chequered history.

And yet they get constant criticism that they are not representative of current society in Britain, when in fact they do represent a fairly typical modern day family (even if they are too white in some people's eyes).

Seriously? Tacky?

So all those on this site who have blended families are "tacky"?

DFOD

I rather like Camilla. She seems intelligent and together. I mean, I would rather sit next to her at a works do than Diana, who was a simpering airhead.

Do give over. It's possible for people to have a genuine disagreement with your opinion without some nefarious PR plot. I've never met Camilla or had anything to do with her, I know relatively little about her, mostly because she keeps her head down and gets on with her duties, which is roughly what I want out of any member of the Royal Family. I'm not pro-adultery, but I can't get too excited about adultery 30 years ago, especially when the supposedly wronged person was sleeping around herself with married men. Mostly my position is that the wife of the King is Queen and I see no reason to depart from that principle.

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

You're seriously taking an amateur journo on Livemint as an authoritative source, @AnnesObstructiveFeather? It's obvious that the authors of those articles are woefully lacking in basic constitutional and historical knowledge. Somewhere a couple of history teachers are beating themselves up in utter frustration and shame.

Over-turning centuries of tradition would be a more modest approach? That doesn't make sense to me.

Sorry, the first para of my message at 16.11 was meant to be a quote.

This is just bizarre. When did you ever hear it disputed that the wives of Edward VII, George V and George VI were entitled to be described as Queen? When did either Elizabeth II or Charles III ever say that a Queen Consort could not be Queen? This is simply wishful thinking, no-one has managed to produce a shred of credible evidence that QEII didn't want Camilla to be known as Queen.

No, they've decided to press on with normal constitutional practice. We really can't have some sort of morality election every time a monarch dies, it would be impossible. We'd end up with a load of useless monarchs with no life experience.

No, they've decided to press on with normal constitutional practice. We really can't have some sort of morality election every time a monarch dies, it would be impossible. We'd end up with a load of useless monarchs with no life experience.
Agree with this.
Much as I'd be happy to remove the monarchy and they can be private citizens, possibly keeping their titles, monarchists can't have it both ways by wanting to keep an archaic institution based on hereditary titles and birthrights, whilst also thinking that the line of succession should be chosen by public opinion and whether the next in line is liked.

Very true, @CabernetSauvignon and @LolaSmiles . Yesterday there were several anti Camilla threads started, plus ones attacking Charles and William. These were not about the issue of an hereditary Monarchy, or discussions about modernisation. No, they were deeply unpleasant personal attacks with strong whiffs of misogyny. Calling Camilla "the old bag on the throne" and basing any criticism on adultery. I think either there's a strong puritanical streak, or the Cult of St Diana the Martyr lives on. I don't particularly have strong feelings about Camilla, but the attacks were awful. All this adultery business as if she should be taken out and stoned to death. It was very strange.

He's not a widower, his ex-wife died.

And the Royal website also refers to the Queen Mother as Queen Consort. Because the titles of Queen and Queen Consort are interchangeable.

Step families are tacky?

Exactly.

And to add: to demand a change to this practice out of a spiteful wish to punish Charles and Camilla would be to judge and insult every person who has ever had an affair themselves. Obviously some extremely blinkered people think this is a good thing, but I think most of us accept that it's a bad idea.

Diana was the first to be unfaithful. She said so herself.

It doesn't necessarily make it true.
It may be what he told her and she was gullible enough to believe it and bask in the glory of being the one in control.
Or did she say it to win the battle of 'who dumped who' when it wasn't even true just because she had her voice back and was relishing having a captive audience and making him feel like the dumped one? She played these games with the media that would not look out of place in a casino.

Without medical checks, who is to know? The writing on the wall screamed differently