Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Get the feeling Charles pushing Camilla as Queen?

172 replies

bkgirl · 08/05/2013 15:10

Fine, the Queen is elderly and needs to cut back.
Fine, Charles is stepping up.
Fine, Charles is with Camilla.
However, I feel he is pushing Camilla on to us as queen and frankly with the history of the whole thing....it's just not on. Diana was far from perfect (who is) but C&C manipulation of her, from the train carriage just before the wedding to the phonecalls from Britannia during the honeymoon - no. They used her for breeding and I just think to let Camilla become Charles Queen would make a lot of people who are quite royalist lose faith. I really think that's why the poor queen has hung on so long. She is wise. Thank goodness for William and Kate.

Camilla could be some sort of consort but nothing more. Frankly I do not trust Charles at all on this.

OP posts:
HighJinx · 09/05/2013 19:57

'there are a few of them who could conceivably fall into the "rich but dim" category'

Grin Beautifully understated Mardy

CarpeVinum · 09/05/2013 20:31

but if they are no different to us then what makes them royal

Nothing. It's just smoke and mirrors. A clump of scrambled egg on a shpulder here. A tira there. A bit of pomp. A ladle full of circumstance. A heaped table spoon of pagenty. Ta-Da!

They bleed red just like everybody else. I know this to be true after my (ex) husband has a rather excitable nosebleed all over the kitchen floor.

The Kate Watching Fervouris based on something just as rare and valid as the blue blood "rariety". Cos just like the blue blood thing it's all in people's heads. Her appeal I think lies in the rariety of a Real Live Cinderella, ehich might be wuite enchanting if you are into that sort of thing.

Given that I kissed a Prince only to have him turn into a frog I am a bit off fairytales myself Grin

They won't go even if you sack them. They will lurk around getting the same crowds and media attention. Please see Emanuele Filiberto and his ilk as evidence. They got exiled for yonks after Italy went republic. The royal fascination didn't go away. And got worse when they were allowed back in, still sans offical titles. God god the man sang badly at San Remo and people STILL want to see his mug on the cover of Hello magazine (or whatever it's called in Italian).

And if they do get sacked the risk is they don't get replaced, but get joined..... by Mrs. President and all the flapping that goes on about whichever hapless women gets lumbered with that role.

I don't live in France but still got Carla "Coo Eee, back on the Front Page Again" Bruni shoved so far down my throat I damn near chocked on her.

Human appear to like having idols and FairyTale Representatives. Maybe it just adds a bit of glitter to an otherwise ordinary landscape ?

Even a lot of places without a clearly defined class system have a class system. Some people get to be more equal that others pretty much everywhere. All it takes is one ancestor in the place at the right time (like on the Mayflower) , and bobs your uncle, social kudos on a stick even centuraries later.

NanBullen · 09/05/2013 21:00

frogwatcher42 do you honestly believe that the royals lead the country? Shock they really don't you know, they're just ornaments.

Viviennemary · 09/05/2013 21:07

Quite Carpevinum. You could get a monkey from the zoo, put it in a silk gown and diamond tiara and hey presto it's a royal.

CarpeVinum · 09/05/2013 21:28

You could get a monkey from the zoo, put it in a silk gown and diamond tiara and hey presto it's a royal.

And monkeys are generally a lot harder to spoil rotten and have their head filled with fantasies of their own enourmous sooper dooper extra importance. Which is another plus.

frogwatcher42 · 09/05/2013 21:31

Nanbullen - no I don't suppose I do really. I know deep down they are just ornaments but I suppose I need to justify their existence in my own mind somehow.

I was speaking to somebody in the met police who has to travel to where-ever the royals decide to go (if Prince Charles decides to go off to Scotland, loads of met officers have to go too) and it seemed ridiculous to me that the police go with him just because he decides to go on his hols on a whim. He ought to have to pay for his own team of security to move around with him. Or maybe he does pay the met for their time?

I wonder what the TRUE cost of the royals is if you take into account the met police time, security and tidying up for events etc etc and not just the cost of the money we actually give them?

HighJinx · 09/05/2013 21:59

I know what you mean about needing to justify it somehow Frogwatcher

I find having a royal family increasingly difficult to justify. It just seems at odds with the progression of society. We seem to have moved past tugging the forelock and yet there are hoards of people waving flags wherever the main members go.

frogwatcher42 · 09/05/2013 22:00

Exactly HighJinx. It seems mad to me - totally against the progression of society and equality etc.

frogwatcher42 · 09/05/2013 22:06

Following on from above - The more I think about it, the madder it seems. In the workplace, society, schooling etc we spend our time aiming for equality. We actively try to help those struggling to fulfill their abilities etc. We aim for everyone to be treated fairly and equally. We try to rid the country of discrimination. All of this is good.

And then we have a royal family who are to be bowed or curtseyed to and effectively have us all tugging at the forelock just because they are born or married into a named family.

Very odd.

HighJinx · 09/05/2013 22:12

I completely Frog and nothing brings the ridiculousness of the whole concept of a royal family into focus more than Kate Middleton.

I have nothing against the woman at all. I don't know her.

My point is that one minute she is a middle class girl from Berkshire and then she 'marries well' and people begin to curtsey to her and line up to hand her flowers.

It is utterly bizarre.

frogwatcher42 · 09/05/2013 22:16

It is indeed a very expensive bizarre.

Viviennemary · 09/05/2013 23:20

I do find it extremely annoying that the views of Prince Charles are taken seriously for the simple reason he is Prince Charles. Does that make his opinion any better than Jo Bloggs. In my opinion no it does not. I can't believe the number of supposedly sensible people support this royal dynasty nonsense.

KittenofDoom · 09/05/2013 23:25

Contrary to what many people think, the monarchy pretty much pays for itself. This is because George III signed over all the revenues of the Crown Estate to the Treasury, in return for an annual salary, as it were. This arrangement has continued ever since. Google Crown Estate and you'll see that the RF is a real bargain.

SaggyOldClothCatPuss · 09/05/2013 23:44

Each monarch since the accession of George III in 1760 surrendered to the HM Treasury the revenues of the Crown Estate, in return for an annual grant known as the Civil List. However, from 1 April 2012, under terms of the Sovereign Grant Act 2011, the Civil List was abolished, and in future the monarch will receive from the Treasury a stipulated percentage of the Crown Estate's annual net revenues (currently set at 15%).
So the monarchy brings the country nearly 6 times what they take out?
Interesting!

HesterShaw · 10/05/2013 09:57

I wonder if it's a case though of an innate need in many people to have something to look up to and fawn over. In America, their president is treated with almost ridiculous reverence isn't he? Far more so than our PM. I thought I was anti royal and when I saw the Queen driven past in Cardiff I ran into the road shouting and waving. The shame!

Original poster
bkgirl · 10/05/2013 12:48

No I don't think she should be called Queen and I thought this was agreed at the time of their marriage? I thought she was to be called consort. Unless we were lied to? Frankly the sooner William becomes king the better.

OP posts:
KittenofDoom · 10/05/2013 12:57

I doubt William agrees with you.

Alibabaandthe40nappies · 10/05/2013 13:06

bkgirl - I don't recall anything being agreed. An awful lot of hysterical Diana fanatics, of which I assume you are one, ranted about how she could never be Queen blah blah blah.

What precisely is it that you object to?

Original poster
bkgirl · 10/05/2013 13:17

Do you always call people that disagree with you "hysterical"?

www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2012/11/12/camilla-to-be-princess-not-queen-says-palace-website/1700083/

OP posts:
CarpeVinum · 10/05/2013 13:18

I don't think it's necessarily a case Diana-itus

www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2012/11/12/camilla-to-be-princess-not-queen-says-palace-website/1700083/

"An otherwise unnoticed statement on princeofwales.gov.uk, which reiterates what has been said since Charles and Camilla wed in 2005, is suddenly getting attention in the U.K., where the Brits are ever alert to any talk about what happens when the Prince of Wales becomes King Charles III and his wife becomes ... well, what?

"It is intended that The Duchess will be known as HRH The Princess Consort when The Prince of Wales accedes to The Throne," is the bland answer to that question under the FAQ section of the website, which was just redesigned and launched last week."

That rings bells as to what was being said at the time.

Bramshott · 10/05/2013 13:19

Meh - doesn't bother me. I quite like Camilla!

DreamsTurnToGoldDust · 10/05/2013 13:26

Who said she was going to be Queen? Does it really matter?

MadamGazelleIsMyMum · 10/05/2013 13:26

I like Camilla. Along with the D of E, and Prince Harry, I think she's one of the ones who would be the most entertaining over a glass of something alcoholic. She will be the Queen when Charles is King, whatever they choose to give her as a title. And I hope she is called Queen, it may have been tactful not to give her Diana's former title, but after the divorce, Diana was never going to be Queen, so her death shouldn't affect the use of "Queen".

And in the only actual test that matters, William and Harry seem genuinely close to their father, happy he is happy, and perhaps fondness for Camilla? If you look at C&C's wedding pics, the princes seem very happy. If they approve, who else really should have any kind of a say?

And I don't think William would ever be happy to upset the natural order of things and want the crown to skip Charles. He comes across as too duty-conscious, much like HM.

Plus, it cannot have been easy for Charles, getting to an age where most people have retired and still not having the only job he'll get. All the wealth and luxury of course compensate, but he's been "in-waiting" his entire life. And I don't believe HM will ever abdicate, so he will continue to wait.

Of course, I don't know these people at all, but just my 2 cents' worth!