Can I ask a question about Diana please?

[allmylifewheretheygo]

If Diana was alive now and divorced from Charles, I just wonder what effect it would with a monarch having an ex wife alive and well.

Would Camilla as Queen consort risk being overshadowed by her DH's ex wife?

Also, if Diana remarried what effect would that have on her royal status, would she move out of where she was living at Kensington Palace do you think?

Not sure who asked the question about Queens Wife and decades.

My guess it will never happen. The monarchy will fall before then.

Assuming George lives to a reasonable age say 70, your are least 6 decades from a Queen.

After 3 Kings we'd be due a Queen the odds of George having a DD first?
Then the odds of her being gay. And actually feeling she could be openly gay?

I wonder how many decades will have to pass before we could theoretically have up to 3 Queens at a time - The Queen (who is actually reigning), The Queen's mother and the Queen's wife.

We’ll never have a Queen whose wife is also Queen. Even if there was a period where an openly gay monarch was accepted they’d never be equally titled imo.

The next time we could theoretically have 3 Queen’s could be if Camilla out-lived both Charles and William and George was married. Assuming that William did not predecease his father you’d have Camilla, Catherine and George’s wife.

To have a reigning Queen in the trio you’d have to have Catherine, George’s wife and George’s daughter as Queen.

There were three queens when the late Queen ascended: Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, and Queen Elizabeth II.

I think if Diana had lived the media would have created a constant rivalry between the two women. Diana would have won the best looking, most elegant woman every time, as well as the one who makes most impact from her work, but Camilla would always have been queen so would win that.

I am not saying the women themselves would have engaged in rivalry, maybe, maybe not, but the media would certainly have portrayed a rivalry.

The Queen visited a Leper Colony and talked to a child. She did not touch anyone with leprosy

Given that you're not a fan of the RF, to put it mildly, I'm not sure I'd take your word for that.

@MrsDanversGlidesAgain Just google. There are lots of articles about her visit to a leper colony.
What was revolutionary about Diana's visit was she was not afraid to touch people. Leprosy is hard to contract by touch like this, but there is a lot of stigma, and especially then. So Diana showing she was not afraid to touch and hug people with leprosy really did challenge things.

The Queen visited a Leper Colony and talked to a child. She did not touch anyone with leprosy.

The Queen never touched anyone. And she wore gloves in case she had to shake hands. That's how she got to live to 96! 😎

She actually did a lot for that centre and was a patron and sponsor of children.

Would Charles have been able to marry Camilla and still become king and supreme governor of the Church of England had Diana not died?

Would entirely have depended on public opinion and how that went.

So no constitutional/religious impediment? I know we don't have a written constitution - so I suppose that allows them to make it up as they go along!

There would be no legal or constitutional impediment, but yes, public opinion would have had to be taken into account. As I recall, public opposition to Camilla had been waning, and Diana and Charles had begun to get along better when she died. Her death arguably delayed the point at which Charles and Camilla could marry.

We don’t actually know what the legal opinion was on the marriage as the advice received on it was sealed until after Charles’ death.

presumably they found no serious issue enough to stop the marriage.

Charles was effectively a widow in religious eyes though so it would depend how they viewed it had Diana been alive.

I think a way around it would still have happened but that’s pure opinion.

I suppose that allows them to make it up as they go along!

Well, certainly Henry VIII followed that approach. Perhaps for more modern times, the term "evolve" is more apt. For example, the Church of England has allowed divorced people to marry in the church for some time now.

Also there are divorced and remarried priests in the Church of England and at least one bishop. That is certainly evidence of an evolution on the issue.

We know that the Queen didn’t feel able to attend the wedding ceremony, though, so there was still controversy surrounding the marriage. Plus, Charles and Camilla weren’t permitted to marry in a church building; they were married in a registry office with a church blessing afterwards (which the Queen did attend).

However, I believe the impediment was not Diana but Andrew Parker Bowels, who is still living. Charles wasn’t a divorcee himself anymore (he was a widower), but he was marrying a divorcee, which a monarch historically wasn’t permitted to do.

It would have been very hard for them to marry, though, if public opinion had still been violently opposed to the union because of Diana, and Charles may still have had to choose between marrying Camilla and succeeding to the throne.

Obviously, however, the country has come a long way since the 1930s, when it was unthinkable that Edward VIII should be permitted to marry Wallace Simpson and stay on the throne.

Divorce was also the issue in Princess Margaret marrying Peter Townsend.

I also remember that there was some discussion of Charles and Camilla marrying in the Church of Scotland, as divorced Princess Anne had done.

I doubt that there would be an issue today. They could even get the divorced and remarried bishop to do the honors.

I suspect that Wallis Simpson was the excuse to dispose of the embarrassing Nazi sympathizer without admitting that he was such.

I think it was before the war -she was a divorcee so nazis didn’t come into it

@Liorae I think (?) I watched a documentary that said as much. The government did not want him to be King and were glad to have an excuse. There were concerns he had already passed secrets to the Naz

She also couldn't have children that was another issue

I imagine the fling with Dodi would have run it's course. She was on the rebound from a lover she had for a while - a surgeon who remained out of the limelight in the main. Dodi was actually with another woman who he quickly dumped when he met Diana so no great catch at all really. So a few more flings since she had quite a few and maybe eventually found someone, who knows.

Maybe she would have settled a bit and realised she was set up for the woe is me interview and perhaps her younger son might have learnt a thing or to since he continues the woe is me now.

I imagine good charity works and fund raising would continue.

I seem to remember that Diana's friends at the time said there was no chance in hell that she would have stayed with Dodi, he was just a fairly short term fling.

I agree. Everything would have been different. Camilla would have carried on being his lover in the background and he would have remained single. I suspect Diana’s life would not have been happy or productive . She would have carried on making poor choices and trying to goad Charles in any way she could.

When people talk about Diana’s poor choices you have to remember that her good choices were often unavailable to her because she was so well known. For example, marriage to Dr Hasnat Khan.