Camilla will officially be known as the Queen

[AmandaJonah]

She clearly is already the Queen. But officially after the Coronation she will be known as the Queen, not the Queen Consort.

I've just found the actual wording:
"It is intended that Mrs Parker Bowles should use the title the Princess Consort when the prince accedes to the throne"
Intended very much implies something open to change to me.

Not exactly written in blood. Maybe if QEII had died 15 years ago so much sooner after the wedding she might have kept the PC title rather than the QC one but still might have been changed at that point. More people might have cared then than do now. It still wouldn't have mattered to me or probably millions of others.

Who does it harm?

I think if Diana were alive today she’d be living a happy, healthy life. I think maybe the could both recognize that their marriage was a success because they created two beautiful children. But that it was unfair and unlivable for both of them.

She was hardly wallowing in self-pity when she died. She seemed to be enjoying life, was still extremely popular and of course would have continued her charitable endeavors.

Even struggling through periods of instability likely made her more empathetic and kind. She’s still an inspiration.

Camilla being named Queen does not take anything away from anyone.

@DappledThings Intended? So basically obfuscate and lie by omission then?
Just as recollections may vary?

Honestly the Royal Family are a bunch of liars. They lie again and again and again.

Eh? It's not like "intend" is an obscure word. An intention is always something that might change.

I intended to go swimming today. I didn't go swimming today. I didn't lie to anyone when I said it was my intention, but things changed.

It would be far weirder if they maintained this Princess Consort title that has no precedence (afaik, happy to be corrected on that) rather than just go with the usual one of Queen.

You seem incredibly angry!

It's no wonder teachers are leaving the profession in droves if in the classroom they're coming up against the same invincible ignorance, inability to listen and take in and comprehend basic information that's been demonstrated on this thread over 11 pages.

To be fair, @MrsDanversGlidesAgain , my yr8 class seem more able to comprehend the nature of the Constitutional Monarchy than many posters on here.

Comparatively recent Queens -

Victoria (Queen Regnant)
Alexandra (Queen Consort)
Mary (Queen Consort)
Elizabeth (Queen Consort)
Elizabeth (Queen Regnant)

ALL known as "Queen Christian name"
Does that explain it?

I'm admiring the mental contortions that say THIS woman committing adultery with one man is behaving badly and is an adulteress but THIS woman committing adultery with several men gets a pass because she's was mentally ill, poor thing. That poster should change her user name to Pretzel, the bending around she's doing.

Good on your yr8 class.

Indeed. There’s also another way to differentiate between the Queens regnant and consort, if needed - only the actual monarchs have a regal number. So, it’s not Queen Mary III (as her husband was George V), just Queen Mary. But it is Queen Elizabeth II. Victoria is also technically Victoria I, but since we haven’t had another there’s obviously no need to use it.

*regnal number, that should say

Charles gave a TV interview first

He did and I think it was a great mistake. He never criticised Diana in that interview.

and the Royal Family constantly briefed against Diana to the press saying she was mentally ill and a terrible mother and wife.

I don't remember hearing that she was a bad mother. In fact, that was her saving grace really. It was only later when it was revealed how she had behaved with William (revelations that came from her friends not the RF) that people questioned aspects of her mothering.

She was mentally ill. I don't know how anyone could deny it. She did push Raine Spencer down the stairs and she apologised to her for that and for all her poor behaviour when she decided she wanted to make up with her step-mother before she died. She had abandonment issues from her childhood. She had eating
disorders and self-harmed and attempted suicide. She dropped friends for imagined slights and then expected them to be friends again. She used to go to hospitals when Hasmet Khan was operating and sit with his patients she didn't know. She was paranoid.

Diana also knew that Sarah Ferguson got a paltry settlement as part of her divorce.

I doubt Prince Andrew had a lot of money when he was in the navy. But Sarah has done very nicely for herself.

Diana was trying to protect herself by challenging the lies and getting the public on her side.

Her interview was not a big success at the time. Many people turned against her afterwards. The weeks before her death, she was going through a quite unpopular stage.

Now Diana is dead there is a real attempt to rewrite history. She can't defend herself of course, so all the lies come out.

What lies? What is there left to say about her that hasn't been said a zillion times? Channel 5 do a programme about her practically every month. What are the lies that are now being told?

And Charles was worse. He had affairs throughout his marriage.

How ironic that you think its awful of the RF to lie about Diana and yet you happily lie about Charles! He didn't have affairs. He had one affair with a woman he clearly loves very much and is still with nearly 40 years later.

Hmmm. You've lied in one of your posts. Are you as tough on yourself?

Intended? So basically obfuscate and lie by omission then?

This^^

Mealy mouthed mission creep which has succeeded exactly as 'intended'.

So many posters with a hotline to Charles and Camilla who have definitively confirmed the number of liaisons which they had with other people to be zero. 😶

They didn't"pledge" that. When they were engaged, the announcement was "‘It is intended that Mrs Parker Bowles should use the title HRH The Princess Consort when The Prince of Wales accedes to The Throne.’ So it was no more than a statement of intention. Then at the Platinum Jubilee the Queen announced ‘It is my sincere wish that, when that time comes, Camilla will be known as Queen Consort as she continues her own loyal service" - that time being the accession of King Charles.

People change their intentions all the time. Yesterday I told DH I intended to go shopping today. In the event, for various reasons I decided not to. That does not mean I was lying when I said what my intentions were.

It's a title that has been associated with numerous people attracting varying degrees of love and respect. Arguably, it's just as much associated with Mary I, who hardly comes into the "loved and respected" category. No-one owns it. I really don't understand why so many people have a problem with grasping that basic concept.

So what hotline do you claim to have that says anything different?

If the RF want to clean up their act and move on from the past sleaze and shenanigans then giving the ex-mistress the highest title in the land (previously associated with a widely loved and respected figure)

Lots of people have 'the highest title in the land,' it isn't exclusive to QEII. Queens of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Spain and Thailand, to name a few. None of whom as far as I know are ex-mistresses.

Nor is it dependent on your approval.

@Plitvice

You are right re the con- a-nation. It's a hot mess.
It's what - 70 years since the last one - and how has the world changed since then . People are wiser .

Plus Charles is the oldest ever king . I'm afraid that makes a huge difference . In fact there may be a succession of 3 old men as 'kings' - but I doubt very much this nonsense will continue past Charles

Charles and Camilla on their thrones and the 'holy oil' nonsense will be a jarring moment.
And all their PR and efforts by the media establishment will not be able to reduce that.

The monarchy is fast becoming a divisive issue . A majority of those 45 and under want rid ( I suspect the true figures are higher ) and of the remaining royalists they are themselves split into those loyal to the memory of Diana and those who accept Camilla

The monarchy is fast becoming a divisive issue

I think most of the population is indifferent most of the time - come out surprisingly themselves by flag waving on occasions then goes back to indifference.

I think they'd have to do something pretty politically stupid to actually whip up the republican vote or a charismatic Republican figure will have to emerge and win any resulting PR war - offer a popular alternative and expended a huge amount of political capital to get it through.

It's wishful thinking at the moment - most people don't care enough to force through getting rid of monarchy while not exactly loving the current system.

@GloomyDarkness

One of royalists arguments is that an apolitical ( lol!) monarch is a uniting force

That argument is void now .

That is the kind of formal language used in all the Royal Family statements. So what this means is that all their statements should be ignored as they are only things they might do, or they might not.
So yeah total liars and manipulators. I would never trust a word they say.

Well yes, a statement of intent is precisely that whoever makes it. Your misunderstanding of this perfectly simple language is really not anyone else's fault. And it's really weird how personally you are taking it.