Queen backs Camilla as future Queen Consort

[SnottyLottie]

news.sky.com/story/queen-reveals-sincere-wish-that-camilla-becomes-queen-consort-when-charles-is-king-in-platinum-jubilee-message-12533906

How do you think this will go down? And will the British public ever accept Camilla as Queen Consort?

@Monopolyiscrap

"Moaning about the past". You sound like Boris Johnson with his move on. You don't get to dictate that the public should forget about bad behaviour just because it is in the past.

Eh? @Monopolyiscrap Last I remember, you don’t represent the public. Not everyone is stuck in the past. I just had to do a quick google and I can see that Charles and Camilla have been married for 17 years now. Unless, he was still committing adultery even now, he’s clearly not repeating the same mistakes now so what would harping on about the past do? He shouldn’t married a 16 year old, but he did. She shouldn’t have agreed to marry someone almost twice her age, but she did. Neither Camilla, Charles and Diana should have been unfaithful, but they all did. It’s all in the past now. So just move on from it.

Again unless you invent a time machine or have some actual solutions, which involves a foolproof plan to abolish the constitutional monarchy, Charles is going to be the future king and she, Camilla, will be Queen consort. Like it or lump it, that’s how it’s going to be.

To repeat once again, infidelity is not, and never has been, a bar to someone becoming monarch or consort. You don't have to like someone or admire their behaviour, but that has nothing to do with their 'right' to become king or queen.

Absolutely! Which is why it was rather disingenuous of the RF to pretend that Camilla was ever going to be titled "Princess Consort" . We wouldn't be having this debate at all if they had been honest from the outset would we?

According to the Independent,

" Royal aides insisted, when she married Charles, that Camilla did not want to be queen and said originally that she “intended” to be known instead as Princess Consort – the first in British history – when Charles acceded to the throne.

But the careful use of the verb “to intend” left this open to change in the future.

Any mention of “Princess Consort” was removed from Charles’s website during a revamp in 2018.

At the time of the couple’s royal wedding, the prince’s advisers argued that Camilla would simply choose not to call herself queen and be known as Princess Consort."

Yeah, right

So who knows? Maybe Camilla intended to be referred to a princess consort? But perhaps that’s not what is allowed in protocol because protocol would dictate that she would be Queen consort. I vaguely remember that despite the fact that she could have been referred to as “Princess of Wales”, she preferred to be called “Duchess of Cornwall”. I was only 13 when Charles married Camilla and I wasn’t even born when he married Diana so I don’t remember as much. But I’m sure reading something about that.

@IcedPurple I do understand that the hereditary principle means you only have to be born into it. Doesn't matter how awful you are as a person or how unsuitable.

@Monopolyiscrap Well, agreed. But it is what it is.

Doesnt have to be.

@WatchMyChops

So who knows? Maybe Camilla intended to be referred to a princess consort? But perhaps that’s not what is allowed in protocol because protocol would dictate that she would be Queen consort. I vaguely remember that despite the fact that she could have been referred to as “Princess of Wales”, she preferred to be called “Duchess of Cornwall”. I was only 13 when Charles married Camilla and I wasn’t even born when he married Diana so I don’t remember as much. But I’m sure reading something about that.

Yes that's possible I suppose. I find that the RF cherry pick protocols to suit themselves tbh. For example, the RF insisted on sticking to tradition when Diana died and not lowering the flag at BP to half mast until the public outcry got too much. But it was just accepted that Camilla declined to use her official title of the Princess of Wales for expediency's sake.

I can’t remember much when Diana died. But was there a reason why it was expected for the flag to be lowered to half-mast? I think half-mast was to symbolise death or something like that or even respect, mourning etc. I tried to google for more info and from what I gathered the Royal Standard is apparently never flown at half-mast, but the Union Jack is.

But we have to admit, she started these affairs due to Camilla and Charles

Do we? The Spencer family isn't exactly known for marital fidelity.

@Monopolyiscrap

The outrage is that a vulnerable naive young 19-year-old woman was duped into a marriage she thought would be loving and faithful, and then was cheated on. When she objected, the Palace PR spun her as mad. Now we will soon have a King and Queen involved in Diana's downfall who will demand respect and demand citizens bow and curtsey as if they are special or to be held in any esteem. We will also soon have another series of the Crown which will presumably reveal facts about our future King such as tampaxgate.

All of that is solely based on one over-romanticised version of the history of their marriage. It just isn't as simple as that.

And since when did The Crown ever "reveal" any new facts?

But was there a reason why it was expected for the flag to be lowered to half-mast?

There was no flag at all because, before 1997, the only flag ever flown there was the Royal Standard, and then only when the monarch was in residence (which she wasn't, they were all in Scotland for the summer)

So flagpole remained empty

But there was a loud outcry, and that forced a change to the protocol

It took a little while - presumaby as the family was prioritising the children and dealing with other admin (Charles flew to France, for example). It's quite likely that changing the rule for flag flying wasn't top of the 'to do' list immediately

@Monopolyiscrap

"Moaning about the past". You sound like Boris Johnson with his move on. You don't get to dictate that the public should forget about bad behaviour just because it is in the past.

No-one says that the public has to forget. Mind you, obsessing about what happened between two strangers 30-40 years ago doesn't really seem healthy.

@DePfeffoff

But we have to admit, she started these affairs due to Camilla and Charles

Do we? The Spencer family isn't exactly known for marital fidelity.

As Camilla wasn't the mâitresse en titre for much of the early years of the marriage, that sounds unlikely.

Blame the man, or at least blame both the mistresses of that time (not just the one who lived to see her 50th birthday and beyond)

Absolutely! Which is why it was rather disingenuous of the RF to pretend that Camilla was ever going to be titled "Princess Consort" . We wouldn't be having this debate at all if they had been honest from the outset would we?

They spoke about intentions. Unless you can read minds, you have no means of knowing whether the statement was dishonest or not.

Since Diana only talks about Camilla.

Why would you assume some other random. Unless you know something more.
Diana may have known about other things, but she obviously considered Camilla as the real threat.
I am not saying Camilla is the absolute love of Charles life here, but she was the one who was the most threat- mostly because I believe that she understood and accepted him the most.

Since Diana only talks about Camilla

I genuinely don’t remember Diana ever mentioning anyone by name. Do you have a link to her doing this? I’m not saying she didn’t know about Camilla, only that she never named her or talked about who she was.

Diana may have known about other things, but she obviously considered Camilla as the real threat

That is clearly not the case, as evidenced by the Mishcon note.

Now, there may have been manipulation going on (to secure That Interview) but Diana was convinced, and I doubt very much that she wouid have formed such a clear view based on a single (false, disproveable source of information.

@smilesy

Oh right, thanks Cheesemuffin. In the Andrew Morton voice coaching tapes. I was thinking more of her saying anything in public at the time.

@Cabriolelegs99 The Royal Family were clear when Diana died that she was not a member of the Royal family and so any protocol would treat her as a private citizen. The palace claimed that her family wanted a private funeral. Diana's brother spoke out saying this was not true. This all led to a public outcry and the Royal Family had to do a U-turn.

I look forward to seeing this time portrayed in The Crown.

I look forward to seeing this time portrayed in The Crown

Why? Hoping to gather some more 'facts'!

I know the facts. No need to mock.

Judging by this thread, it doesn't look as if you do, @Monopolyiscrap

They spoke about intentions

The Queen said it was her “firm intention” to go to the cenotaph service But then circumstances changed and she was unable to. So her “intentions” had to change. If you intend to do something it doesn’t mean it is set in stone. Changing your mind or having to alter your actions due to circumstances doesn’t mean you did not mean what you said at the time.