Is Camilla the first previously divorced Queen?

[Munchies7]

I recall from the time of Charles and Camilla's wedding that we were told she would be Queen Consort and not Queen. I believe this was a way of appeasing the people who were displeased at the way Charles treated Diana. I'm wondering if Camilla is the first divorced Queen.

Which monarch changed [something] to allow divorce?

Camilla is descended from her IIRC? (Sorry if I’ve missed this being mentioned elsewhere in the thread.)

I wouldn’t say that.

(also by the time Charles and Camilla did get married the rules had been changed, and they could have got arrived in a church, but they decided not to).

Possibly @PortmeirionTiles but Eleanor had 10 children so we all probably descend from her!

@PortmeirionTiles i don’t know how accurate this is without researching it further but the below link states that she is a direct descendant of King John (whose parents were Henry II & Eleanor of Aquitaine)

https://famouskin.com/famous-kin-chart.php?name=4198+ranulf+ii+of+aquitaine&kin=15049+camilla+parker+bowles

I find it hard to believe that anyone who has even the most cursory exposure to Britain does not know about Henry VIII!

You really don't need to be an expert to have the basics of something as well-known as this.

Correct it's not moot.

His former spouse died, and that overwrites the divorce, and so he was free - just like any widow - to be remarried in Church.

This is true. The only thing that makes it noteworthy is being able to trace it!

At the time of the wedding, which was very controversial, they said she'd be Princess rather than Queen but that would really be a odd move.

No other King has had a Princess as his consort. The Palace played the long game, 17 years of letting Camilla build her support and reputation, in the Queens last speech she asked of Camilla to have the Queen title.

@FuckeryOmbudsman look I have a History degree and studied the Tudors at university, but I never studied them at all when I was at school. So if I'd not had an interest in History I could conceivably have got to the end of school without knowing a great deal about the Tudors.

But regardless, if someone is asking a question then there is just no need to be superior and to put them down. They are trying to increase their knowledge and that's a good thing. If you asked a question about something you didn't know about, and they had the attitude of you being an idiot for not already knowing, how would that make you feel? We all know different amounts about different things and anyone trying to increase their knowledge of anything should be encouraged rather than being out down.

In fact that attitude says much more about the people using it as an opportunity to feel good about themselves than it does about the OP. Big wow they know about the Tudors but they use their knowledge to put others down. It's just pathetic really.

Eleanor of Aqitaine was previously married to the French King (and divorced), then married Henry II of England (mother of Richard the Lionheart, and mother of King John).

Are you saying they lied to us through song?

@BabaBooPuffinsRock I hate when people do that.

Eleanor of Aquitaine - was only one I could think who wasn't widowed.

Joan of Kent - never Queen but a Dowager Princess of Wales and Mother to a King of England - Richard II- had an interesting marital journey - secretly married at 13 then married to someone else by her parents- first husband came back from a war wanted her back went to court which found her first marriage legal then she later married The Black Prince.

Catherine Parr was the most married queen consort. She outlived 3 husbands including Henry VIII, becoming a Dowager Queen and then went on to marry Thomas Seymour (brother of Henry's 3rd wife Jayne Seymour).
Who needs Eastenders when you have the Tudors?

Catherine Parr was also the first woman to publish a book in the English language under her own name.

I am very surprised you did not cover the Tudors at all at school. It's been a common subject for simply ages - certainly since 1066 And All That was published in the 1930s, and it's been part of the NC since it began in 1988. So it's pretty unusual for anyone raised in UK to have no knowledge of this at all. That's the reason why people are surprised - it's a core topic (officially so for a couple of generations, and de facto so for substantially longer)

BTW - there are new songs now, courtesy of Horrible Histories.

Also you can argue yourself in to the ground about the number of times he was actually, really properly married - depending on how you count the nature of their endings. Because if annulled, did it ever count as a marriage? So (arguably) he was married only 3 times (annulled, annulled&executed, died, annulled, executed, survived) but of course DC from the first 2 marriages were disavowed then re-legitimated, so what was their status!? Certainly more like divorce than annulment - though the 4th marriage annulment would count as such by most (all?) standards

I am very surprised you did not cover the Tudors at all at school.

I didn’t either. My Royal historical knowledge is based on reading just about everything Jean Plaidy wrote when I was a teenager.

"I neverstudied them at all when I was at school. So if I'd not had an interest in History I could conceivably have got to the end of school without knowing a great deal about the Tudors."

Only if you also didn't have a TV.
I didn't do them at school either, but the Tudors are everywhere on TV.

Since none of Henry VII's queens were previously divorced, as the question asked , then his life is completely irrelevant. Perhaps instead of being snotty you should work on your reading comprehension skills.

oh dear, calling out another's education when your own is clearly lacking, not a good look.

I am very surprised you did not cover the Tudors at all at school

why? They were not U.K. Monarchs. In Scotland we covered Scottish history.

Mary of Guise had children by her first marriage and, after the death of James V she ruled Scotland during her daughters minority.

Divorce is better than beheading or other gruesome deaths as occured previously! so the UK is keeping up with the times! In another 100 years the queen will probably be a man known as 'they'.

Mary Queen of Scots is currently on the Scottish curriculum, and it is studied in conjunction with the Tudors (a Welsh/English dynasty) as it can't be adequately covered without that context.

Perhaps that has not always been a school topic? (You're right, I don't know about previous curriculum). So if you're too old for the ubiquitous Horrible Histories, too young for the Pillar Box War, attended school at a time when that Mary was off the curriculum, or didn't attend school; then yes it would be a gap (plus you'll not have watched any of the TV shows/films (from highbrow to Carry On) or read historical fiction)

(The Tudors had a pretty major impact in Ireland too, so also feature in history topics there).

As always, another potentially interesting and informative thread derailed by a side disagreement.

Threads always move in mysterious ways.

Rather than ticking off those who have been exchanging views, perhaps reinforce the aspects you'd like to see more of?

I found it quite interesting to have a think about what topics schools teach in history. And what people just know, because it's one of the planks of the national culture (each home nation, as well as UK as a whole).

If any MNetters overseas light on this (esp if from Commonwealth countries) - how much does British history - particularly the history of the monarchy - is familiar?

Not all of the UK follows the NC.