Camillas PR campaign to be Queen - menu competition for queen

[bkgirl]

I can't help being cynical with this woman, she has proven herself to be so devious in the past. Looks like she is intent on making us all like her so she gets to sit with Charles as his queen :(
It will not work with me.

Nope,I was a production co-ordinator but on that occasion they gave me one of the cameras. Shame it only went out in Europe, they said it couldn't be transmitted in the UK because other local parents wouldn't like him working in the local nursery. Amazing story,she was about to become a nun weeks before he was released.
Solo, I think you are right.

The only ethical difficulty is, I suppose, that she is divorced and her first husband still lives. But since Henry III, it's hard to make the case that that is an insurmountable objection.

It would however have made things rather similar if Andrew had married Princess Anne, and she had married Charles in the first place.

Some people are still mortally offended on Dodi's girlfriends behalf.

Or was it Will Carlings?

Or indeed James Hewitts?

I'm getting on and I forget that it's all Charles fault and his new wife is the other woman :)

I can't take to a couple who whilst married with children carried on an affair for years. If we must have a monarch who is also the head of the church of England, I would expect him and his wife to display traditional Christian values. If he can't behave or if the job is too much for anyone to live up to, then abolish the monarchy.

Kings and princes have had affairs for centuries though. Amongst the aristocracy it was fairly common to marry someone who was suitable for your position/ a suitable person to be a parent to your children etc and then have affairs with the people you fancied.
The Church of England started with Henry V111 after all, and he had numerous affairs.
I don't expect the monarchy to be paragons of virtue, they have rarely been so.
I agree separating the C of E from the monarchy would make sense, but I really don't care who they sleep with. I'd be more concerned if they started trying to run the country.

Since Queen Victoria, the monarchy has attempted to reinvented itself as a shining example of family life and virtue. If it can't manage to do that, I can't see the need for it at all.
Prince Charles has done his very best to interfere in politics his spidery hand written letters and notes have appeared in many cabinet minister's in boxes.

Slight hijack:

It's clear that the Queen is queen for life. If she became incapacitated, she would remain queen but cease carrying out the duties of the position and Charles would take them up as Prince Regent.

But given how old he is, if this occurred at a time when he was also incapacitated, would Prince William become Prince Regent? And if so, what would Prince Charles be known as for that period? He would, I assume, still be the heir, whilst he lived, and would still become King on the Queen's death (even if he couldn't carry out the duties of the monarch, and William continued as Regent).

I think there was a lot of bosom-hoisting indignation about Camilla for being the OW to 'Saint Diana'. Probably still is in the blue-rinse set. But a lot of us are divorced and living in blended families these days, see friends and relations go through break-ups, find love second time around etc., and realise that it's not always as black and white as looks. Plus I think Camilla has done a very good job of not trading on her royal status the way some others do, staying very much in the background, supporting charities etc.

If her stepsons don't bear a grudge, why should we?

And I think you've got the wrong end of the stick about the menu competition.

CogitoErgoSometimes, my MIL does the 'bosom-hoisting indignation about Camilla for being the OW to 'Saint Diana'. Apparently the 'public won't accept' Charles as King because of 'what he did to poor Diana'. I've pointed out ad infinitum that the public don't get to vote. I haven't the nerve to point out yet that said MIL was the OW to her last husband, she helped split up a family of young children & probably doesn't therefore have a leg to stand on.

But then MIL was younger & prettier than Camilla & the wife was much older; that apparently makes it all ok . I suspect that if Camilla had been Charles' first wife & Diana the OW there'd be a heck of a lot less indignation/manufactured outrage/whatever...

I'm not particularly keen on the monarchy
But camilla seems like a good egg
Charles' kids seem to like her

I think the cooking thing is a really good idea.

Well, morality aside, it would appear the cooking compo may be illegal. Now the OP can have her way and have Camilla tossed into the Tower .

I think there would have been more outrage if Camilla had been younger and prettier than Diana. As things stood people thought "it must be love if he prefers her to Diana" as the traditional OW stereotypes were overturned.

I am amazed that the BBC is carrying that story, given the nature of the rebuttal from the DofE.

Republic seem like such a miserable bunch of so and so's, they really do.

Agree, I don't really care either way. I think if we just scrapped the monarchy and used the money for something useful I'd not be too bothered, but I definitely don't want an elected head of state. Would far rather have a gaff prone toff who brings the tourists in than another bloody politician. I like a good posh procession as well.

Yes, I think if we look around other European countries, the elected heads of state don't come off any 'better' or more popular than the royal families. Certainly where I've lived (Netherlands, Sweden, Spain) they're fairly well-liked and of course have lived on a more modest scale in general.

Frankly I would rather have a fairly benign King Charles than Presso Blair. Now, if we could have Jed Bartlet from The West Wing that would be entirely different.

And the thought of President Salmond fills me with horror

Although President Clegg would be an interesting turn of events

Going back to this:

It's clear that the Queen is queen for life. If she became incapacitated, she would remain queen but cease carrying out the duties of the position and Charles would take them up as Prince Regent. But given how old he is, if this occurred at a time when he was also incapacitated, would Prince William become Prince Regent? And if so, what would Prince Charles be known as for that period? He would, I assume, still be the heir, whilst he lived, and would still become King on the Queen's death (even if he couldn't carry out the duties of the monarch, and William continued as Regent).

Charles would still be known by his current title(s), no reason for any change. He wouldn't be Regent unless he was doing the job. As for who would be Regent if Charles was unable, that's an interesting question. Not sure if it has to follow the line of succession, or if they can appoint whoever is deemed suitable at the time.

As for Camilla, I am and always have been in her camp, and think it's a great shame that Charles didn't marry her in the first place. But I think back in the day, the old guard were still hoping to get him married off to a foreign Royal, and Camilla's blood wasn't blue enough for them.

I don't really have strong feelings either way about Camilla. I am generally a little distrustful of royalty, or rather, the toadying, thieving, cruel prats who claim to serve them. That said, I fail to see how she is being devious and manipulative by running a recipe competition. The saucy tart!! Hmm ... maybe you could enter with a recipe named that ;)

I don't get this 'monarchy by consent of the people' business. We've got this ludicrous situation where we stick an extended family in a gilded cage and get the Press to continually poke them with a stick.

Either have a monarchy or not. And if you support the monarchy, then out future King can have anyone he damn well likes as Queen irrespective of what the subjects think (who should just shut up and bow).

Why should we all shut up? We are paying for the monarchy. Yes, they can choose whoever they like to do whatever with but we are allowed an opinion......as for the press and poking with a stick/privacy laws that is a different argument. They do deserve privacy too but there comes a point when someone ditches the wife and professes to be a tampon which kinda rips the @rse out of being a future king.(ok I know these were hacked or something)
Also, do you go round generally telling people when they can have an opinion?
For the last time I can't or have no desire to influence the succession of the monarchy.Jeez....

"Constitutionally, hasn't the wife of an english king always been queen?

So why would they change it for Camilla when there is no need?"

Don't fink so, GetOrf. You have to be crowned to be queen. There is no requirement for the spouse of the King to be crowned at the same time as him. Neither Jane Seymour nor Catherine Howard was crowned queen of England - Henry was probably waiting to see if they produced a son before he paid for their coronation. Jane, of course, died producing said son and Catherine probably never had a decent shag from the old goat.

Elizabeth of York was not crowned as Henry Tudor's queen until she had already produced an heir.

Thanks Pol for sauntering by....lol

I've never viewed the royal family as a good moral example, you can't be that over priviledged and be moral - not when you could do some real good with your riches!

Apart from that - who cares it's only a title