Why is the Queen commenting on the Roald Dahl controversy?

[OutofEverything]

I thought the Royal Family were supposed to be uncontroversial and unpolitical, so why is the Queen getting involved in this? It is nothing to do with her, she did not have to say anything?

Or have the rules changed and they are now going to be more controversial and political?

Who on earth is going to be "disturbed" by her presence?!

I guess her presence will be slightly less disturbing than if Diana were hauled out for the occasion.

My inner Nan has the exact phrase for the disturbing nonsense.

g’wan. Guess…

But she is not The Queen. She is merely Queen Consort. She is just a female Philip. And most of us referred to Prince Phillip as just Phillip.

So he should have chosen a wife for her 'suitability', and not for love?

Because that worked out so well the first time round?

This is just rubbish. Only a small cohort of Diana obsessed weirdos will be unaccepting of her. Most people will be entirely unmoved by the Queen being crowned Queen. Thousands of intense Royalists will I guess be very overexcited as they are at all Royal events.

Anyone who is "disturbed" by it needs help.

I bloody love your inner Nan, @ArcaneWireless . She'd deal with this nonsense.

Nope. As has been explained countless times. The wife of a male monarch has a different status to the husband of a female monarch. So Prince Albert wasn't King Albert but Queen Alexandra was Queen Alexandra.

You can not like it all the day long. Doesn't make you factually correct.

The 'consort' part is just acknowledging the fact that she is not the reigning monarch, just married to him.

In British constitutional law, the wife of the king is the queen. It's as simple as that. The difference with Philip has been explained many times above. The aristocratic system is decades behind the times and assumes that males automatically outrank females, so a King Philip would have been consider higher in rank than Queen Elizabeth, even though she was the sovereign and he a mere consort. The same does not apply when the genders are reversed. Camilla is HM The Queen.

maireas

I’m sure she’d appreciate me and my inner Nan.

The utter pish spouted on some of these threads is coming close to having my inny nan being a permanent outy.

Only shoogly pegs and that… ☹️

I reckon MNHQ should allow me a nan amnesty week as a Coronation gift. 👑

I'm going to personally contact MNHQ and lobby for this.
Sanity and commonsense need to prevail.

Yes - and it is the same with other aristocratic titles. Women can't confer them on men by marriage. Hence, e.g. Princess Eugenie's husband is still Mr Jack Brooksbank. Only men can confer a female version of their title on a spouse.

A female monarch can create her spouse as a Prince (or Duke etc.) but it doesn't happen automatically when they marry.

Oh ffs! No I don’t consider Diana an “icon”
or “Queen of hearts” or whatever mawkish sentimental phrase the press has made up
for her, so please stop patronising me thanks Maireas. I liked her because she was open, natural, warm, energetic and very good at her job.

It’s interesting (and I have noticed this before in other threads about the RF) how you choose to patronise while completely ignoring my points about hypocrisy!

You're on point, @IcedPurple and it's been said many times.
I think some are just unwilling to accept how things work on this issue.

@Saffronpotatoes67 . Fine
Admire her, many do. I've said that before, it's your choice.
My only point is that it won't stop Camilla being crowned.

Here we go again, “Diana obsessed weirdos” .

Why is it not possible in your eyes Dappledthings to merely prefer one woman over another?

Quite a few people I know in my circle of friends are not particularly supportive of Camilla as it happens and we are all sane, well-read intelligent women thanks.

What's worse is that Eugenie is often officially referred to as "Mrs. Jack Brooksbank" on royal communications, a style which mostly vanished for the rest of the population decades ago. Even after giving birth, Zara Tindall wasn't allowed the dignity of her own name and was referred to as "Mrs. Mike Tindall".

And while I think the practice of conferring peerages on royals upon marriage should probably go by the wayside, if they are going to continue with it, then Charlotte as well as Louis should be offered a peerage in her own right, especially as she outranks him. The idea that a woman's status depends on her husband's is so outdated, even by royal standards.

@ArcaneWireless - I've sent you a pm.

Oh, I can't stand that kind of address form for married women, @IcedPurple it's so archaic.
Years ago I remember Princess Anne being referred to as "Mrs Mark Phillips". 40 years on and no progress.

Where did I say it would stop her being crowned Maireas?

We are not obliged to like Camilla, or Charles for that matter, or have any particular thoughts about them at all!

And some of us wish that the whole lot would retire and live out their lives in private on their various country estates without any financial support from the public purse.

Diana failed all her O levels.

I wonder what would happen if a minor royal woman wanted to keep her own name on marriage? Could Zara ask to be referred to as Ms. Zara Phillips for example? If it were me, I'd insist on it!

Well, we may have found a point of agreement @Saffronpotatoes67 ! 😂😂
I know you didn't refer to the coronation, but I just meant that nothing will stop Camilla in her role, even if some people personally do not like her and still feel very positively about Diana.

So what timing would be better? Like it or not, she became Queen as soon as Queen Elizabeth died, how can they change the timing of that?

I bloody would. And have done!
I don't hear that about Beatrice, maybe she objects?

What does what other people were expecting or looking forward to have to do with anything? Can't a man with no wife choose to marry anyone who is legally free to marry, just because he wants to?