Camilla's grandchildren to take star role in the coronation

[Viviennemary]

The DM is reporting this (who else). Apprently Camilla's grandchildren are to play a prominent role in the coronation alongside the other heirs. Not sure I agree with this. Although I quite like Camila now although I didn't used to.

You know, all this talk and nonsense about queen / queen consort / queen side piece is a way to distract from a more basic inequality that 'royals' don't like highlighted

Eg
Queen marries - but as she is a mere woman her husband can never be called a king. A mere woman isn't of enough significance to 'pull' her husband up a 'rank'
Eg Betty and Phil

A king married - and even Camilla is now 'queen' . Because the man is considered superior so she can pig back off his rank
Rank is the word

Sex Equality Act anyone ?? Lol
Of course the royals pick and choose laws to suit themselves

And don't start me on the concept ' royal blood' . Con of the century and has the whiff of racism
Explains a lot

Nurse here - never ever ever met a poor nurse visiting a food bank, maybe if you are a single parent without support, but that would happen in every walk of life, fed up of being classed as paupers when most of us live pretty well.

Novella

Thanks for the explanation; that's a new one on me.
I presume she wouldn't be crowned if she wasn't married to the king even though - since he's a widow - she's not the "other woman" now.
Perhaps they'd have invented a British version of the French maîtresse-en-titre.

"There have been lots of Queens over the years who are Queen because they are married to a King. They have all been a Queen Consort but usually just called The Queen or Queen Alexandra for example. Camilla is already The Queen, Queen Camilla and a Queen Consort but we have unusually be referring to her as The Queen Consort to differentiate her from Queen Elizabeth (who was a Queen Regnant) and to keep the people who don't like her a bit happier. I don't think those people will every change their minds to be honest but perhaps the press will start referring to "The Queen" or "Queen Camilla" after the coronation."

Tell me you've been swotting up on queens without telling me you've been swotting up on queens 🤣

I was actually taught all this at school! , do they not teach it anymore?

Imagine if Camilla was on Mumsnet:

My DH is about to take part in a special event with his family which will include me (his second wife). We thought it would be nice to involve my grandchildren but lots of other people have taken offence and feel my husband's relatives should take precedence. AIBU to involve my grandchildren?

@jeffgoldblum Why should schools teach the proper address for different members of the Royal Family?

And don't start me on the concept ' royal blood' . Con of the century and has the whiff of racism

Explains a lot

You do like frothing, don’t you! The “royal blood” is exactly the same distinction everybody else makes between their daughter and their daughter-in-law. In other words, the formulation was used to distinguish between people who married into and those who were born into the royal family. So it’s not a con, it’s genealogy.

Lots of people like to trace their direct descent from various historical personages. When talking about this, your bloodline (mine too! Anyone’s!) is their sequence of direct ancestors. In the case of a very well historically documented family, that process is simpler (see on Who Do You Think You Are for various examples of celebrities who discover one member of the historic royal family in their ancestry, meaningless they can suddenly trace their bloodline back to William the Conqueror etc). It’s (a) genetic, not cultural, and (b) all self-evidently happened in the past and can’t be changed, so I don’t quite see how the reference to it can be racist.

I was referring to the names of kings and queens, I was taught all this in history, and along the way obviously the correct title and difference between consort and regent .

I'm afraid Royalty probably look at you as if you were a peasant, nowt to do with your education.

No schools no longer teach history as being about Kings and Queens and have not for a long time.

But they do teach by era - Vile Victorians, Gorgeous Georgians, Terrible Tudors etc

And a bit of how the monarchy works and developed wouldn't go amiss

It's been quite an eye-opener seeing how often people ask about why "only" Prince for Albert (and Phillip) despite Victoria's reign being a common topic, and the deaths of ER II and shortly before that her consort being recent current events. And the number who don't know that the Divine Right was abolished in the Glorious Revolution in 1688 is pretty large too, going by the number of posts that mispresent it.

Do they not do mediaeval history, Cromwell, the war of the roses . Any more?
I found it very interesting as a child , although I did prefer ancient history more.

I remember that as well. 😊

Apparently Charles is extremely fond of camillas dc and has set up trusts for them. One wonders has he done the same for Harry! William being given the duchy of Cornwall?
How close is this man to his own damaged traumatised son.

He set up trusts for Camilla's children before he even married Camilla. @DancingDaughter50

William got the Duchy of Cornwall automatically when he became PoW.

Harry has/had large trusts from the Queen Mother and his own mother. He may have a trust from his father for all we know, but if not, his father may have thought that Harry was already well provided for. Until Harry left (and for a year afterwards) he was getting substantial hand outs from his father, and could presumably have saved some if he wanted.

Generally on MN people are weighing in when adult children complain about their parents giving their money away elsewhere...

Camilla’s son is his godson so it’s not really surprising he has something set up for him - I’d imagine he has for all of his godchildren.

William hasn’t been “given” the Cornwall Dutchy. It’s automatic for the eldest son and heir of the monarch to be Duke of Cornwall and deal with the Dutchy. It wasn’t a choice thing, it’s automatic. The moment they Queen died and his father became King, William became Duke of Cornwall. It’s not given like the Wales title.

Tom Parker-Bowles swaps eating raw chicken and bleeding venison on the BBC for palace life. Love it!

Camilla’s son is his godson

For some reason I find this extremely distasteful all things considered.

@EdithWeston
I'm haven't seen the 'divine right of kings ' misrepresented but I have seen lots of objection to Charles being automatically made head of the church
That is often what they are referring to

And btw - you are on a losing wicket trying to imply that tue removal of the divine right has in any way 'modernised ' the 'royals '

Equal rights ( you seem to passively accept that a queen can now make her husband a king ) , having the Mountbatten Windsors no longer above the law - and so much more
The form of monarchy the UK has is the most unreformed in Europe
It doesn't surprise me that posters think divine right of kings is still in place
Chick is above the law

I always think he comes across really well. A nice bloke.

That should be ' a queen cannot make her husband a king'

Agree, he's fab.

And btw - you are on a losing wicket trying to imply that tue removal of the divine right has in any way 'modernised ' the 'royals '

Well of course!!
I was talking about 1688!!

My point was that there are plenty of posts (even if you haven't seen them) which really misunderstand the whole concept.
I was expanding on a pp about what is covered in the history curriculum