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?

I am not impressed with the Queens sense of humour either that we aré told about in various news articles. It seems at heárt quite cruel.

@IcedPurple perhaps Camilla did. Or perhaps there's was an open marriage?

To be honest, if she knew of your existence, HM probably wouldn't be impressed with your sense of humour @Monopolyiscrap. We're all different - we don't have to like/admire each other. But it's best that we're honest and truthful.

[quote Monopolyiscrap]@IcedPurple perhaps Camilla did. Or perhaps there's was an open marriage?[/quote]
Well, if you want to put it that way, most aristocrats of that generation had 'open marriages' in the sense that fidelity was not really expected, so long as affairs were conducted discreetly.

Which is why I think all the pearl clutching over Camilla not being qualified to be queen because of being a 'homewrecker' is so ridiculous. Infidelity was the norm, not the exception among royals and aristocrats until quite recently. Possibly it still is.

Well I still do. I have a silly sense of humour. It is not immature to find that you are unable to prevent yourself from laughing sometimes. It’s just human nature. If you are able to control yourself then at all times then good for you.

Sorry that was to Monopoly

And I'm sure that if Meghan laughed at the Archbishop of Canterbury while he was giving a sermon you'd excuse her just as generously. After all, those with "silly senses of humour" just can't help themselves!

So by your logic, Camilla only started her affair with Charles because of her husband's serial infidelity.

I actually do believe that she went back to Charles because of the husband's infidelity. I believe she was in love with her husband and he let her down badly.
My argument is that both she and Diana should have had their affairs with single men, not married ones. Camilla would very likely been aware of Diana's MH and the stunts she pulled, showing how distraught she was. Her confrontations with Charles, her eating disorder, throwing herself down the stairs etc. If she had any heart, she would not want to be any cause or involvement in all of Diana' strifes.

@notanotheroneagain

So by your logic, Camilla only started her affair with Charles because of her husband's serial infidelity.

I actually do believe that she went back to Charles because of the husband's infidelity. I believe she was in love with her husband and he let her down badly.
My argument is that both she and Diana should have had their affairs with single men, not married ones. Camilla would very likely been aware of Diana's MH and the stunts she pulled, showing how distraught she was. Her confrontations with Charles, her eating disorder, throwing herself down the stairs etc. If she had any heart, she would not want to be any cause or involvement in all of Diana' strifes.

Whereas Diana thought the wives of all the men she cheated with were thrilled to bits about it all?

@IcedPurple Yes it does seem as if infidelity is rife and accepted amongst the aristocracy. Of course, Diana had not signed up for that.
An open marriage is fine if that is what both parties freely agree to. But if only one wants it, it is cheating, not an open marriage.

Well, as I said, both of them should have found single men, considering they knew the hurt affairs caused to their own marriages.

@smilesy

Well I still do. I have a silly sense of humour. It is not immature to find that you are unable to prevent yourself from laughing sometimes. It’s just human nature. If you are able to control yourself then at all times then good for you.

It is very immature to laugh at a sermon being given during a wedding. It was not silly laughter. It was judgemental laughter. And yes I would judge anyone over 20 years old doing the same. Good manners cost nothing. And not mocking someone else's wedding choices when you are at their wedding is very basic good manners.

@notanotheroneagain

Well, as I said, both of them should have found single men, considering they knew the hurt affairs caused to their own marriages.

Right.

So I'm just not getting the one sided outrage here.

Camilla cheated. Diana cheated. So did both of their spouses.

That fact isn't going to stop Camilla becoming queen, just as it would not have done had Diana remained married to Charles, and just as it has not done throughout the centures during which 'homewreckers' have been sovereigns and consorts.

What really is the issue here?

Diana was never going to be queen. They were divorced.

@notanotheroneagain

Diana was never going to be queen. They were divorced.

Well yes.

That's why I said 'had she remained married to Charles'.

How did you miss that part?

But she did not. and nothing was declared about her being styled as queen in any manner for the future.

So a non-issue then.

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.

@notanotheroneagain

But she did not. and nothing was declared about her being styled as queen in any manner for the future.

So a non-issue then.

That's irrelevant.

She was expected to be queen and went by the title of HRH Princess of Wales until her divorce. This despite the fact that the queen knew about her affairs all along.

So infidelity would not have prevented Diana from becoming queen, any more than it prevented countless monarchs or consorts over the centuries.

Do people seriously think Charles and Camilla will be the first king and queen ever to have had extramarital affairs? It would appear so.

It was not silly laughter. It was judgemental laughter.

Unfortunately, I do not share your ability to ascertain what different “types” of laughter look like when I watch them on TV.

And I'm sure that if Meghan laughed at the Archbishop of Canterbury while he was giving a sermon you'd excuse her just as generously

If this was aimed at me then, yes, I would. If she found something funny, fair enough.

@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.

I don't agree with your portrayal of Diana as some innocent victim, but that's not really the point.

The point is that monarchs don't have to conform to your or my personal idea of how they should behave. Rightly or wrongly, that's not what the monarchy is about. And nobody is obliged to respect anyone else, much less bow to them.

@ajandjjmum

Didn't the statement say 'the intention' is that she would be Princess Consort, which generally reflected public opinion of Camilla at the time. As public opinion of her has development, 'the intention' has changed. Nothing wrong with that - life evolves.

If you wanted to be a fireman when you were young, but grew to become an accountant, would that mean you had lied?

Hear hear! Besides, I thought “Queen consort” is what a king’s wife would normally be referred to as? A king usually outranks a queen which was supposedly why Phillip wasn’t referred to as “king consort” or “king”.

@IcedPurple by the time the public knew about Diana's affairs, it was already obvious she would never be Queen. The marriage had so obviously broken down.

@Monopolyiscrap That happened a long time ago. It shouldn’t have happened, but it did. Unless the constitutional monarchy is abolished or you have planned to invent a time machine, Charles will be “king” and Camilla, who he has been married to for goodness knows how long now, will become “queen consort”. Even if Camilla was to be referred to as “princess consort”, it won’t change the fact that he will become the new monarch, when QE2 passes away, as long as we still have a constitutional monarchy. So what is the point of moaning about the past?

"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.

[quote Monopolyiscrap]@IcedPurple by the time the public knew about Diana's affairs, it was already obvious she would never be Queen. The marriage had so obviously broken down.[/quote]
So what?

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.