It’s a subject that divides people across the country and indeed, around the world. Should the Duchess of Cornwall become Queen when Prince Charles accedes to the throne? Some argue she cannot, others that she must – I’m going to explain in this article exactly why I believe Camilla must become Queen.
It was a defining moment in the progression of the British Monarchy. The day in 2005 that the future king of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth Realms married a divorcée. The last time such a thing had happened, in 1936, the King had to renounce his right to the throne. But times have moved on, haven’t they?
Clarence House, at the time of the 2005 wedding, made it known that Camilla – upon her husband’s accession to the throne – would be known as HRH The Princess Consort, a title which has never been used in Britain before and was contrived in order to try and quell negative public feeling towards her when she was first introduced to the public eye.
It is now 9 years on from this and much has happened in between then and now. We’ve got to know Camilla for who she is, not what we think she’s done.
At least, I thought we had. Whilst support is increasingly moving in her favour, there are still many whose feelings of contempt towards the Duchess of Cornwall have led them to the conclusion that she should not be queen.
From my point of view, I find the argument people cite against her becoming Queen typically consistent of shallow observations about her past and in some exceptional cases, comments on appearance, but nothing that amounts to a sustainable reason in modern times why this woman shouldn’t be our Queen.
In fact, her many virtues are far more significant than the superficial arguments offered by opposition to her becoming Queen. For one, she genuinely cares about what she’s doing – picking causes that matter to her and taking a genuine interest in them as well as drawing public attention to them in the process. She is also incredibly assured of her behaviour in public, she has never put a foot wrong as a member of the Royal Family and across the globe has been an excellent ambassador for the UK along with her husband.
I’m not avoiding the obvious here, I am acutely aware of the argument borne by outraged Diana fans and certain close-minded individuals but isn’t it time to move on? Don’t get me wrong: what happened with Prince Charles and Diana, Princess of Wales was tragic but none of us can know exactly what went on in their marriage and to apportion all blame on Camilla seems unreasonable, and for what purpose? Are we trying to punish her?
To me, the idea of this kind of judgement of Camilla is absurd. Personal matters should surely be immaterial to whether or not she should be our Queen.
To deny Camilla the title of Queen could also set a dangerous precedent. To become personally selective with titles brings the whole system of monarchy into question. Giving republicans any ammunition like that would not be in any way desirable.
For me, the bottom line is that to deny Camilla the title of Queen would be the ultimate snub to all that she has done. In my view, she has successfully challenged public perception of her and carved out a unique role for herself in the face of the frankly unreasonable prejudices carried by some towards her over her past.
It is through her commitment to her role that I feel she has even earn the right, if that’s how to put it, to be our Queen.
Ultimately, the process of trying to change the legal title of the wife of a king would be an ugly one, and not one any self-respecting politician would willingly go through. It would essentially involve a full political debate before passing an act of parliament and as well as being a possible questionable use of parliamentary time and creating a whole host of problems in the Commonwealth realms – as well as seeming personally invidious towards Camilla.
My concluding thoughts must be that I for one fully support a Queen Camilla. Quite simply because anything else just wouldn’t be right.
Contribute your thoughts on the Queen Camilla debate in the comments box below.
photo credit: shaunamey and UK Parliament via photopin cc
My thoughts on the title of the king’s wife have absolutely NOTHING to do with the current cast of characters. For years I have felt that if the Queen’s husband is NOT given the title of King (and I understand why he doesn’t and am in total agreement with it) then the King’s wife should NOT be titled as Queen. Princess Consort or Princess of the Realm or some other title should suffice.
This is a reasonable position – though it comes down to common law rather than any kind of institutional sexism. Woman traditionally takes husband’s title & name, Monarchy reflects this. I can see your reasoning but I think the status quo is logical.
I’m not British. If you want the monarchy by Queen Camilla, then why not ldarle the title of King, the Prince Consort Philip, husband of Queen Elizabeth II
I’m not British. If the monarchy by Queen Camilla wants, then why not give the title of King, the Prince Consort Philip, husband of Queen Elizabeth II
I’m very glad to see this article, which was very well written and addressed all the relevant points, IMHO.
A monarchy is based on a country’s traditions and precedents. In the United Kingdom, when a Prince of Wales becomes His Majesty the King, his wife’s title is Her Majesty the Queen. That’s just the way it is, and has always been.
Constitutionally, it would require an act of Parliament to downgrade Camilla’s status and I think no one would dare introduce such legislation after Prince Charles’ accession. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that even if something of this nature made it’s way through Parliament, it would still require Royal Assent; that is, the monarch’s signature. Does anyone think Charles would sign it?
I loved Diana too, but what’s done is done and it’s time to move on and focus on the future. Charles and Camilla work very hard at what they do, and their personal relationship is no one else’s business. It’s long past time to stop bashing the Duchess of Cornwall.
Well said Ricky. My thoughts entirely.
Ricky. Absolute drivel. Focus on the future? My God. Is that what he was doing when telling our future Queen he wanted to be her Tampon. I and many others will never forgive or forget their antics against a lovely lady he used just to bear him children while carrying on with that dried up ……… They can rot in hell for all I care. What an example to the future on how to develop loving relationships with truth and decency.
That’s not true Ricky because the current queens husband is only a prince
Bravo for having the courage to point out this fact.
As mentioned in a previous reply, the situation with Prince Philip is almost entirely different to that of Camilla. The fact Prince Philip isn’t king is down to common law (i.e. a woman takes her husband’s rank, name and title unless hers is higher) – the wife of every English (and later British) king has invariably been a Queen.
Shouldn’t he fall under the same rules as his uncle. Not to marry a divorced women or to abdocate his throne?
Not rules, just convention of the time. Church of England doesn’t oppose divorce now and there’s no need for Prince Charles to abdicate.
It should be pointed out that King Edward VIII did not absolutely have to go; he had choices:
1. Marry Mrs. Simpson and stay on the throne, even if that would mean the resignation of his cabinet and possibly provoke a crisis at home and the Empire countries.
2. Remain on the throne as a single man, and give up seeing Mrs. Simpson.
3. Continue seeing Mrs. Simpson, but not marry her or anyone else.
4. Marry someone else later on who would become Queen.
5. Take his case to the people, and appeal to them for a decision.
6. Abdicate in favour of his brother, the Duke of York.
As we all know, he chose the last option after weighing his choices. But he did have these choices, as well as others I may have missed.
She will alway`s be nothing but a s**t on the side. And i`ll give it the same respect it gave to her lover`s wife……as in none at all!! He could be become king tomorrow….THAT w***e will always be beneath me
and i`ll never have any respect for it or him while he`s with it! THAT is never going to be no queen of mine !! I`ll decide who i respect thank you
The Duchess of Cornwall is Prince Charles’ wife, and as such she is a senior member of the Royal Family. In due course she will be Queen of the United Kingdom.
The article above concentrates on the good work Camilla has undertaken, rather than focusing on negative opinions of past events.
You’re entitled to your opinion of course, but I don’t understand why you would come to this site with such a negative comment. Perhaps you’re new here, but the tone of your remarks is quite out of place with the positive atmosphere Royal Central tries to maintain.
Are you out of you mind? The article above concentrates on the good work Camilla has undertaken…. as in sleeping with someone else husband from start to finish of a marriage to the point it destroyed it even after there were kids. Nothing can wipe that slate clean! And as for….. I don’t understand why you would come to this site with such a negative comment…. thats what its for to voice your opinion and when im told some moraless s**t might be representing my country as Queen trust me im going to have one!
Again, opinion yes, but you cannot change the onward march of history. As the world goes these days, Camilla is pretty darned moral and a wonderful person overall.
This is the exact attitude I’m on about! A sense of false superiority, as if you know exactly what went on in her life and you’re judging her for it. It’s disgusting that you would personally attack someone in that way. Grow up!
unbatedmedus, that is a despicable thing to say! If you were my child I would wash your mouth with soap and water! That is the senseless attitude of a child, one full of a false sense of superiority, shameful!
Diana is on tape describing exactly how Camilla made her feel. I don’t see anything wrong with judging Camilla negatively for it. If I can’t be grown up because I attack Camilla, then I would rather not be grown up, thank you.
Diana is dead and gone. Move on. Who really cares about how she felt back then. The princes quite love Camilla. If they can, you can at least quietly ignore her.
No, I am not going to move on. When Diana died, I vowed that I would hate Camilla for the rest of my life and I meant it. I care how Diana felt back then, and I think William and Harry are stabbing their mother in the back if they “quite love Camilla”.
William and Harry, bless their hearts, put on a good show. Camilla makes papa happy, and as everyone is aware, that MUST be the most important thing in everyone’s world….note obvious sarcasm….”Tolerate” is a word I would use….love? Nope….
Can you be sure they have not grown to love her. I’ve read a biography and she’s very well liked by those who know her. I’ve read they love her very much. Life does indeed move on. It is not disloyal to their mother. No one will ever displace her in their hearts, but maybe their hearts are big enough for loving a step mom also. Why not!
I disagree that it is not disloyal to their mother. I think Diana would heartbroken if she knew her sons “love” Camilla as you claim.
You must be a very unhappy person indeed.
Do you think Diana would want people to go on hating someone on her behalf for the rest of their lives?
I remember seeing a banner someone placed on the railings of Kensington Palace just before the funeral that referred to her as “Diana of Love.” I think you could find a better way to honour her memory than pledging to hate Camilla.
I never use the word hate. Too strong a word. Unfortunately, we will never know how Diana would feel about anything, and shouldn’t really make assumptions about it at this point in a futile attempt to have anyone’s negative opinions change about Camilla.
I was replying to Cynthia when I spoke about hating Camilla. But I have to agree that it’s a waste of time trying to change some people’s opinions about her.
I thought Diana was wonderful, and when Prince Charles remarried, I was undecided about what to think of Camilla. I suppose I felt that I would be disloyal to Diana’s memory to have a positive opinion of the new Duchess of Cornwall.
But over the years my opinion of her improved as I saw her dedication to the charity work she has undertaken. I feel much the same as the author of the article above. I’m very much aware that many people will continue hating Camilla, but I’m entitled to my opinion too.
I certainly agree. If she was the woman I believe she had become, she would not want this hate thing going on at all. Cannot imagine why anyone feels hate for life is some sort of virtue.
Di could hold a grudge longer than anyone, and so can I.
And I am truly sorry for you.
I don’t think Diana would hold a grudge Cynthia….do/did you know Diana personally?? I know I didn’t. I was one of the millions who watched her funeral and cried like a baby. I cursed both Charles and Camilla…..but over time, I felt the need to forgive..they truly love one another. The Queen, William and Harry have all moved on with their lives…it is such a shame that people like you waste your life hating someone you don’t know…..it’s exhausting….
It’s my opinion. I didn’t know Diana personally, but she was known to hold grudges against people and good for her if she did. I don’t mind hating Camilla.
I am seriously sorry for you. Hate corrodes the hater and doesn’t hurt the object of their hate one bit.
I’ve decided you’re joking to provoke an interesting conversation. You could not actually feel this way.
I really don’t like Camilla, and that is no joke.
The facts are the facts, please stop being an arse kisser. She was a pig who could not keep her legs closed when the ring went on Diana’s finger and not her own. Bottom line no matter what the circumstances it does not justify sleeping with another woman’s husband and cheating on your own. She is a moraless, unscrupulous guttersnipe. The minute he was married she should have backed away, and he is as much of a sleaze for using a naive girl as a brood mare. They deserve each other. Whom needs to grow up is you. The one who thinks adultery, and marriage under false pretenses is acceptable if the excuse is right! It’s called “being an adult”, which clearly neither one of them were. The idea you would even entertain an excuse for them is disgusting at best, and disturbing at worst. Never mind pathetic and disrespectful to the memory of a mother of a future king
Tell you what……..seeing as there is a new moral standered going on Who thinks next time some married p**k comes on to me i should date him kids or no kids! rub his wifes face in it to the point she has to leave to save her own self respect? Just for my own happiness :)…….anyone ??????
If someone’s being hurt, then of course it’s wrong.
But there’s no way to change the past, and there’s nothing to be gained by holding onto a grudge forever. Doing that only makes the pain last longer.
I enjoy holding grudges. Saying mean things about Camilla makes me feel good, if nothing else.
It didn’t even begin to play out that way.
You may, of course, decide who to respect, but you have not say whatsoever in who will be your queen. Trust me on this.
You make a good argument against monarchy. I know first ladies can be unpopular too, but the nation is not stuck with them for life.
I’m American. I’d give anything to have what you all have. At least in this era with Parliament strong, the monarch not all-powerful and the real commitment the royal family shows to the citizens and the country, as well as the vast amounts of time and treasure the Firm puts forth doing good, giving stability, something to count on. Our politics suck. One can get whiplash now that the next elections start right after the ones just passed. You have a middle to hold you together, we don’t.
How can you have a democracy without politicians? Would you rather have an absolute monarchy?
Did you read the same comment as I did? Nowhere did Anni say she wanted an absolute monarchy, or a lack of politicians. Please reread what she wrote, especially that part about “this era with Parliament strong, the monarch not all-powerful and the real commitment the royal family shows to the citizens and the country.” Yes, that part.
Well she said “our politics suck” and lamented the frequency of elections.. Sounds like she wants a lack of politicians and democracy to me.
Fortunately for everyone else on the planet you don’t speak for us unbatedmedusa, you speak only for yourself. Just as you are free to hate whomever you choose, so are the rest of us free to like or at least tolerate whomever WE choose. I’d be willing to bet a considerable sum of money that the Duchess of Cornwall isn’t going to lose any sleep because you consider her to be her husband’s ‘s**t on the side.’
If one royal member had to give up the throne for love and a twice divorced women, Then all should apply no matter the reason. They set these rules for a reason.
King Edward VIII did not have to give up his throne in order to marry Mrs. Simpson, because there are no such rules. The British government of the day, and those of the Empire countries, felt she was unacceptable as a Queen Consort, and told the King that if he married her they would all resign.
King Edward had choices. He could have gone ahead and married her, remained on the throne, and accepted the resignations of the Prime Minister and the others. He could have stayed on the throne as a bachelor, or married someone else later on. It was his decision to abdicate, and as we all know, he married Mrs. Simpson the following year.
Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin’s main objection to Wallis Simpson was that she was a divorcee, with two living husbands. In those days divorce was seen as a major social disgrace, but attitudes have changed considerably since 1936.
I think just about everyone in the government resigning would have been a disaster, both at home and abroad. Random question though: does the commonwealth law state anything on what is to be done if such a mass resignation happens? I am rather curious about such things.
In political matters, there’s always someone looking for an opportunity to hold senior offices such as Prime Minister or other cabinet positions.
Whichever political party holding a majority in Parliament would have someone at it’s head, and the monarch or Governor-General would appoint them.
Okay. Thanks for the info.
Edward VIII was also a Nazi sympathiser who gave the British Government a horrendous headache. George V predicted that within a year he would destroy himself and made it clear that he hoped nothing stood in the way of George VI and Elizabeth II from taking the throne. Had Edward VIII not been such a bloody nuisance he probably could have remained king.
One Royal Member cut off his wife’s head after their relationship grew sour. By your logic, we should have done that with Diana too.
Actually that particular “Royal Member” cut off the heads of two of his wives, and ‘divorced’ another two. Though what Henry VIII was really after with those ‘divorces’ was annulments rather than divorces. And yes royal wives did have to mind their “p’s & q’s” in days gone by. It is only in the late 20th century that Royal husbands have also been expected to be more circumspect with their behaviour.
I got the impression that Wallis Simpson had been suspected of having an affair with Von Ribbentrop, who was Nazi Germany’s ambassador to UK, which is one reason why she was not wanted as Edward VIII’s wife. Also, she was American & not native-born British, unlike Camilla. And most importantly of all, unlike Camilla, who already has a grown-up family, and is now too old to have more children with Charles, Wallis Simpson’s marrying Edward VIII in 1936 could have changed the succession from what it is now. So it won’t hurt anyone or change anything if Camilla is made Queen Consort.
There was a great deal of lurid gossip about Mrs. Simpson going around then, even before the story of her romance with the King got into the British newspapers. But it’s just speculation, since anyone who might have known something wouldn’t be alive today to bear witness. That being the case, I think it’s unfair to judge her based on conjecture.
But even if there had been King Edward and Queen Wallis it would not have changed the succession. The Duchess of Windsor is known to have told a few people close to her that her husband was not “heir-conditioned,” as she put it.
The succession would have been the same, only delayed for about 20 years. His niece would still have been Heiress Presumptive, and would have become Queen after his death in 1972.
If success laws can be changed then other things regarding the monarchy can be changed too. Oh well, if Camilla is Queen let’s make life difficult for her. Call her ugly, send her hate mail and general negative vibes her way. Hope she cracks under the strain, The Daily Express says she’s taken up smoking again. Good..
Why are you so resentful, Cynthia? She is the love of Prince Charles’ life, who he should have been allowed to marry in the first place..when Charles is King..she can be nothing other than Queen.. I would be honoured to meet her and curtsey to her.
I want to be Prince Charles’s mistress. I can love him better than Camilla can.
Having us on. Following the whole conversation shouts that you are having a giggle here.
No. I really want to be Prince Charles’s mistress. I think he’s cute and I want to hurt Camilla.
If you are serious, which I’m doubting that you are, then that really wouldn’t make you any better than Camilla, according to your own moral code.
No, I’m serious. I don’t mind being with an older, married man. Considering the rewards Camilla has received for breaking the moral code, FINE, I’ll break the moral code as well!!!
it was not good enough in 1936 why should we lower our standards now .so like the aussies Canada we don’t want Charles and the divorcee. also Charles has weird idea of being defender of the faiths NO he is defender of the church of England and that goes back to henry the 8th and queen Elizabeth the 1st the founders of the church of ENGLAND if he becomes king he is the head of our church not any other so don’t kill our church its suffered enough with the loonie lefties. pass the crown on a generation to the younger royals they look pristine and not soiled
That is up to the Law of Succession and the UK Parliament. I’m not even sure that Canada has passed those amendments to the Law of Succession to permit a girl to inherit the throne, rather than a younger brother. And since the third in line is a boy anyway there is probably no more hurry.
I’m not British, but it seems to me that one of the strongest reasons for Monarchy (and particularly today for Constitutional Monarchy) is that it has rules and traditions that keep it a timeless embodiment of the State and the continuity through time and space of a particular people. As the Editor clearly states, tampering with these rules and traditions breaks the inner logic of this kind of system (for example, something which one of your monarchs, Charles II, clearly recognized when refusing to capitulate to those pressuring him to alter the succession by passing over his Catholic brother James, Duke of York, and choosing his illegitimate son, James, Duke of Monmouth).
You mean like the tradition of Colonialism? It is time for the royals to join the real world – work for their living and for the absurd class divisive and undemocratic Monarchy is abolished.
Lena, you just very clearly proved the position of the article. If tradtions such as the Kings wife being called the Queen Consort are not adhered to, the Monarchy would be brought into question. The wife of the King has always been known as the Queen Consort, and only an act of parliament can change that. It is what it is.
kkeri12, you are forgetting that in the current monarchy, Queen Elizabeth’s husband is PRINCE Philip … NOT King Philip or King Consort Philip … so in other words, you’re so full of crap that your eyes are brown.
If a guy marries a queen he does not become King as the title of King is higher than that of a queen, hence why Phillip is only HRH Prince Phillip. If a female marries into the monarchy they become the Queen consort as that title is still below that of a King
Ozark Granny, I’m totally not full of crap. Instead, I was smart enough to do research before commenting, and I suggest you do the same to avoid future embarrassments. The subject of Queen Consort and Prince Consort was already addressed in great detail in other comments posted here, but evidently you skipped reading it and decided to leap before looking, which = FAIL! So I’ll recap the info for you : In British Royalty, the wife takes the rank and title of her husband, just as non-royal wives take the surnames of their husbands. A husband NEVER takes the rank and title of his royal wife, instead she keeps her rank and adds his name. That’s why the Queen’s cousin Princess Alexandra became ‘Princess Alexandra, Lady Ogilvy’ after marrying Sir Angus Ogilvy. Prior to her marriage she was called Princess Alexandra of Kent.
Within the British Monarchy, ‘King’ is literally considered a higher rank than ‘Queen’. The wife of a reigning King is called the Queen Consort, but the husband of the Queen regnant is called the Prince Consort. The Queen’s husband cannot be called ‘King Consort’ because that places him in a position to potentially outrank the Sovereign. By being named Prince Consort instead, the Queen’s husband has a rank that is only a step below the Queen regnant, and is still higher in the royal hierarchy than everyone else in the kingdom. A good example is Queen Victoria’s husband Prince Albert, the last Prince Consort prior to Prince Philip.
One of the reasons I enjoy Royal Central as much as I do is because the discussions are remarkably civil and the commenters are usually respectful of each other, even if they disagree on something.
As I’ve said before, I’ve stopped going to certain other sites where some of the discussions go to shocking extremes. I think we have something very special here at Royal Central, and other sites could take a lesson from the way most of us conduct ourselves.
Seldom have I seen such coarse, personal insults used against another commenter like you have done. All the other person did to earn this abuse was to express a different opinion.
This is quite unnecessary, and you do your beliefs a great disservice when you resort to this kind of name calling.
I agree. Really the monarch is a symbol of unity. And a monarchy such as this embodies tradition. It is a noble and admirable thing. We should not throw out the past because it is old.
Camilla should only be the consort of Charles should he be made King.I would prefer he be passed over for William to succeed.
But that would require acts of parliament in all Commonwealth Realms. Merely allowing for universal primogeniture too a concerted effort to implement despite it being well and truly time. For something as minor as this it really is not worth the effort.
That is exactly what will happen in due course. Camilla will be Queen Consort when Charles inherits the throne. And the crown will not skip a generation because it just doesn’t work that way. William’s time will come later on; be patient!
Whichever title is used, whether Queen or not, Camilla would still be the consort of Charles, nothing more and nothing less. England, itself, has had at least 6 Queens who could rule in their own right as Queens Regnant, including our present Queen Elizabeth II. All the rest were Queen Consorts, the wives of Kings. There were two consorts of these Queens Regnant who got to be entitled KIngs, either because in the case of Philip II, because he was already King of Spain, or because William III had a valid claim to the English & Scottish throne, himself. There was a good political reason why the remaining Prince Consorts were not offered the position of King Consort, if such a position exists anywhere at all. And no, I don’t think Charles should be passed over for William who needs the time to enjoy his new family, whilst he still can, and to amass experience in his position.
King Consort is a real title but not used often in the UK.
Yes, Philip II of Spain was given the title King Consort and he would have likely had the same title regardless of whether or not he was ready Spain’s king.
As for William III, he was not a King Consort, although he should have been but argued that he be allowed to reign as co-Sovereign with his wife and 1st cousin. Parliament consented because William brought a military force with him from the Netherlands and Parliament just wanted to have the matter settled. They gave in because it was the lesser of two evils not because the title doesn’t exist.
I totally agree with you Karen! At the end of the day it has always been that the king/queen cannot be seen to marry a divorcee! I’m not being old fashioned, I’m saying why the hell should Charles be treated any differently because apart from being married to a divorcee, he is one himself. Camilla should never be queen and Charles should never be king!!
I agree because of all misunderstanding, distrust ,and dislike, I think these two should step down, if not for themselves, to save the monarchy itself, they never would find the love & devotion that William and his family would have
I disagree. She should not be queen of England because A) she is a divorcee’, and the King of England is the head of the Anglican Church B) he was the lover of Prince Charles before and after he married Lady Diana B) for respect of William and Harry C) if she become queen of England may people turn away from British Monarchy.
Uh, the Anglican church only exists to celebrate divorce.
The beauty of not having a rigid written constitution is its flexible and can adapted to any circumstances.
Besides Charles remarried in st George chapel, not Westminster abbey.
Prince Charles married Camilla in a civil ceremony at Windsor Guildhall. A ceremony of blessing followed at St. George’s Chapel in Windsor Castle.
I think his legal marriage actually took place in Windsor’s town hall. A blessing took place at the chapel at Windsor Castle.
it was Started by Henry v111 so he could get a divorce !
There were actually a few more good reasons.
And, they were annulments, not divorces.
Baron, its Queen of the united kingdom and not England. It has been like this since 1701 and the glorious reign of HM Queen Anne.
Baron does have a point. The United Kingdom consists of four countries: two kingdoms (England and Scotland), a principality (Wales), and an earldom (Northern Ireland). There are also other areas like the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, etc.
Elizabeth II is the Queen of the two kingdoms, England and Scotland.
Legally, England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland form one Kingdom (the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) – The Queen is Queen of the United Kingdom, it’s not correct to say she’s Queen of England or Queen of Scotland separately… at the moment.
Regarding the Channel Islands, that’s not part of the United Kingdom – The Queen reigns over them as ‘crown dependencies’ and as such is not Queen but is referred to as the Duke of Normandy on the Channel Islands.
How very confusing, but extremely interesting! Thank you, and I stand corrected. I got that information from an American TV documentary, and am glad to know it was incorrect.
Isn’t there someone in the Royal Family who holds the title “Earl of Ulster?” That’s why I thought Northern Ireland’s status was (technically) an earldom.
Was I correct about the legal status of the Isle of Man?
Also, if Scotland votes for independence (which I doubt) and wanted to continue their association with the monarchy, would that make HM Queen of each country separately?
Northern Ireland is a ‘province’ rather than a kingdom or principality etc. The eldest son of the Duke of Gloucester is known as George, Earl of Ulster though as with all peerage titles (except Cornwall and Lancaster), none have anything to do with the territory in their title normally.
The Isle of Man isn’t part of the United Kingdom and as I say, The Queen reigns over it as Duke of Normandy rather than Queen of the UK.
As things stand, if Scotland votes for independence, The Queen will become Queen of an independent Scotland (Queen of Scots) in the same way as she’s separately Queen of Canada and Queen of Australia etcetera.
Thank you. I thought the Queen was known as the Duke of Normandy in one (or all) of the Channel Islands; was I mistaken about that, or is that title used in both places?
My mistake, The Queen is known as the Lord of Mann on the Isle of Mann and of course as Duke of Normandy on all of the Channel Islands.
So from your reasoning Charles should not be King of England because he is divorced and had a lover whilst being married to his first wife.
Absolutely silly and pointless issue to discuss. Get rid of the lot of them!
Republicans are so miserable. That’s why they have no support.
They’re like “a candle in the wind”.
Absolutely. Long live the future King! Long live the future Queen!
And WHY ?
A snub to what she has done? Well, we all know what she has done…..
If this was April 1st, I’d have to say ” good one”
Let’s look at percentages here. Have you been 100% moral? If you have, and you lead any kind of life at all, I guarantee you you won’t remain so.
I was with one man for 20 years, married for 18 of those 20…..lost him to cancer in 2003, have not been with any man before him or since….and I still have a life..so, yes….I can say when it comes down to sticking myself in someone else’s marriage, I am 100% moral! Thanks for asking! Edward and Wallis were pretty much banished because of their “love” …I think the trend should continue….but that’s just me…
Edward was a Nazi sympathizer. Maybe Wallis was just a good excuse to push him out. He didn’t really have to go you know. There are a lot of things in a life moral and immoral, not just sex stuff! Hundreds of immoral things have nothing to do with sex.
Kathy I wouldn’t mind getting to know you. I am a royal supporter, single, and looking for someone similar to talk all things monarchy and maybe go visiting famous places connected with royalty. I would love to have a companion for friendship and romance.
Maybe u could email me through the royal central website. My name is Mark I live in London.
My parents made a point of teaching me to be 100% moral. I was always punished severely if I was anything less. So yes, other people like Camilla deserve to be punished too.
Yes, proves me right. You must be a very unhappy woman. I wish you some sense of love overtaking you to cleanse you of the mean past your parents seem to have inflicted on you. Moral is something that should be gently taught with love, not by severe punishments. Bless your heart, dear.
I rather doubt we’ll ever know exactly what any of the three players in those events actually did. We have pieces and bits, mushed together, not much else. Charles seemed pretty much pushed towards a virgin as a wife, too young to have a past–at least way back there in the ancient 1980’s! Diana was a 19 year old with a rotten, loveless childhood behind her, which left her with an eating disorder and lacking in self-confidence at the time of their marriage. She wasn’t ready for the life she was headed for. (Camilla had a wonderful childhood and was loved.) Diana quite forged a wonderful life that she much more enjoyed than she’d have enjoyed the one she had before the divorce, I’m pretty sure. She was loved by many, and lovely. The good that came of that marriage was William and Harry, who seem quite well-adjusted. And now we have an heir who is in a happy marriage, Like Elizabeth II, like George VI. This can only be a good thing
Umm…we have more than pieces and bits. What about “there were three of us in this marriage” do you not UNDERSTAND???????
These two people USED another human being, and Diana paid the price with her LIFE. These two and their “happiness” came at the expense of Diana’s innocence and her LIFE, may they NEVER forget what they did. It was despicable to plot, plan and play with the emotions of a young woman whom was madly in love with her husband, her children and her country. They killed the rightful Queen to be, and there is no way on God’s green earth that the mistress should be bestowed such an honor. Actually neither of them deserve this honor.
That was Diana’s opinion do you not understand that! I do despair. They were not using her, they hurt her, but they were not using her. There was no plot. If any one was using her it was those who forced Charles to marry her in the first place as he did not want to. She had long wanted to be the Princess of Wales; I rather doubt she was madly in love with him. There’s nothing about deserving and it’s not an honor. It’s a birthright.
Let’s say for the sake of argument that someone directly in line to the throne was a complete and total asshole. Would you still want that person to be King?
I’m easy but Prince Philip has never been seen as ‘King.’ Let Camilla be King’s consort.
That’s exactly what will happen when the Prince of Wales becomes King Charles III.
Gonna be George VII
How do you know what name Charles will take as King? Did he tell you this? This will be the first decision he will make as King, but I don’t see any reason why he would be known by anything other than the name he has been known as all his life. Especially since he now has a grandson named George, and they don’t need two Georges in the Royal Family.
It is an educated guess, only. His grandfather was Albert, known in the family as Bertie, but reigned as George. Biggest majority of kings of Great Britain are Georges and Edwards. It would make much sense for George VII to be followed by William whatever number it is, to be followed by George VIII. It’s pretty typical in the historical view. We had a James, Charles, Charles, James.
There had never been a King Albert and he picked the name George primarily because Albert was “too German” sounding and WWII was looming on the horizon. This however is the exception rather than the rule. Most English and British Kings have reigned using their first given names. Prince Charles is not in the same situation and there is no reason why he would reign as “George” or any other name than Charles. The Queen must have thought “Charles” would be a good name for a king when she named him.
Her parents were rather unhappy she named her heir Charles, I’ve read that in some of the history I’ve read over the years. My guess is she put George as his fourth name, hoping he would be a George just as her beloved father was, also using his fourth name. Charles is not a great name to reign as, historically, but If he chooses it, fine by me and seriously more power to him. I’m only guessing because it’s fun for me. I like the monarchy and like to read about them. Better than some hobbies.
But the first thing they are asked is what name they will reign under. It has more often than you may think been something other than the first name.
Victoria’s name was Alexandrina Victoria, Edward VII’s name was Albert Edward. It is not unknown.
So what? It is still the exception, not the rule.
No, it won’t.
Look for another Royal Central article called “What Will Charles’ Accession Be Like?” and find a link among the comments for an article that has put to rest the speculation about Prince Charles’ regnal name.
Cannot really know, speculation by the rest of us cannot be put to rest, until the time comes. Though after some more reading I’ve decided he may well be Charles III. I like that as Charles I is a saint in the Anglican Church, so it would seem, and I guess he was actually quite popular in his day.
The King’s wife has always been his consort and she has always been called ‘Queen Consort’ because she shares his rank and title, just as any other married woman would share the surname of her husband and be called Mrs. XYZ if she were the wife of Mr. XYZ. Prince Philip is not a wife, he’s a husband. He can NOT share his wife’s rank and title. He was born with the rank and title of Prince Philp of Greece, and after their marriage the Queen used Letters Patent to bestow upon Prince Philip the rank of a Prince of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth, but just as husbands do not take their wives surname, royal husbands do not share their wife’s rank and title. Prime example: Neither Princess Anne’s first husband Captain Mark Phillips, or her present husband Vice Admiral Sir Timothy Lawrence, has ever been called HRH, yet the wives of both of Princess Anne’s brothers were called HRH during their marriage. Bottom line: Women take on their husband’s rank and title, men do not, it is what it is.
A sexist tradition that dates back to when a wife was little more than her husband’s property.
Like millions of married women in the world I share my husband’s surname, and our two children have his surname as well. It’s 2014 and in no way does having his name mean we are his property. It means we’re his family!
Actually Camilla Parker Bowles was Prince Charles mistress the s***Princess Consort should be her only title..I think the public will be disappointed if that cow becomes Queen Camilla
Disappointment, fine. Name calling and the like–nothing at all good can come of these.
I don’t know. Name calling makes me laugh which makes me feel good.
Really, we must stop judging people so harshly. Camilla and Charles cannot help that they love each other. Ultimately, they found their way back to each other, Diana is dead, Diana’s sons accept and respect Camilla, and she will be Queen some day.
Diana is dead because she fucked another guy ….PRICK ….The Royals killed her … Go get yourself a life
BULL SHIT … YOU’RE BUYING INTO THEIR SICK, DEMENTED ACT HOOK, LINE AND SINKER. If that’s love, then I’m the Archangel Gabriel. (I’m 100% certain that I’m not.)
Preach! Bless you! This is an amazing article!!
I completely agree. The monarchy is a continuous succession. The wife of a King is a Queen, not a Princess.
One of the main reasons for Camilla becoming Queen should be that she makes our future King Charles HAPPY … and we all know the disaster that an unhappy king can be!
Yet, Queen Victoria’s husband was Prince Consort, and the current Queen’s husband is not even that, just a Duke. So this is a gender issue I guess.
Prince Consort is one of the Duke of Edinburgh’s titles. When someone brings it up with him he usually says that he doesn’t use it because of it’s association with Prince Albert.
It’s much the same as the Duchess of Cornwall not using the title Princess of Wales, but legally she is now the rightful holder of that title.
I see, I hadn’t looked at all of his titles. Thanks for clarifying. There are other Prince Consorts in various European monarchies. But still, is it a gender issue in Britain?
Wrong Ricki. She is not legally the Princess of Wales and should not be Queen either. She should just be known as, what amount to, wife of the King should he be crowned.
She is Princess of Wales and will be Queen automatically when Prince Charles becomes king.
Whenever someone brings this up with Camilla, she says she doesn’t use that title because of it’s recent association with Diana. But legally, she is the present Princess of Wales.
Prince Consort is NOT one of Philip’s titles. He is QEII’s consort, yes, but the two of them jointly discussed and decided to forgo the formal Prince Consort title as his peerage title would be forgotten.
I can make him happier.
You’re talking from outside of their residence … many of their staff has said this is NOT true.
The number of relentlessly ignorant, darned right stupid, undereducated and poisonously mean-spirited people in the world absolutely astound me and give me precious little hope for the future of the human race.
Anni, I feel the same way. In all the time I’ve been reading and commenting on Royal Central, I’ve never seen such mean-spirited remarks as I’m seeing on this article. We don’t have to agree with each other, but we certainly can be civil while discussing it.
I used to read essays and comments on another site where the verbal brawling could go to shocking extremes. It got so bad that I decided to stop going there because it just upset me too much. I hope Royal Central doesn’t get so bad that I stop coming, but I’m beginning to wonder if it’s worth the aggravation.
I seriously hope it can get a bit more civil. I do love the site.
You’re giving the British a bad name, deary. I’m biologically part British and dearly love the British … except when they judge other people when they themselves should be looking in the mirror … I’m one hundred thousand percent certain that you are NOT perfect and neither is anyone else on the face of this planet, Anni. The only perfect man who ever walked on this planet was crucified 2014 years ago.
Yes … please look at yourself in the mirror before you start to judge others … what you stated gives me the impression that you’re talking about yourself, deary.
Camilla will hardly be accepted internationally…..she created her own drama
Face of a Cow and married to a Dick
Not needed in todays age …Parasites who get money from the people they are so in love with …Yea …Also ask yourselfs one question …Are they special ? …Do they have Special Blood …. FFS we are all born equal …..Why are these parasites different to you ….PLEASE ANSWER
Camilla has a drinking problem that has put her in rehab twice in six months, that is a fact!! She threatened the Queen that she would blab about Charles gay romps since they’ve been married. A despicable person at best let alone a Queen. What is wrong with all of you? No one has ever respected Charles, she has him where she wants him. Odd, Prince Phillip & the Queen both wanted Will & Kate to take the throne. Don’t you wonder WHY that has all changed so quickly??
there is an officers code and Charles broke that when having an affair with Camilla she was another officers wife and he was married to Diana who would have been our true queen I don’t forgive or forget remember the public crying at her funeral was that true feelings or not we do seem to have very short memoires. morally the number one family should live a unblemished life and he more so as he is going to be head of the church of England so pass a generation he’s to old anyway he has no longevity pass it to the younger royals I no its not the way its done but our queen was young when she got the baton and the world respects an experienced states person but we don’t want the cart horse when we could have had a filly
Your comments remind me of some interesting historical parallels in British royal history.
Queen Victoria’s eldest son, who became King Edward VII was a very long-serving Prince of Wales, owing to his mother’s many years on the throne. Many people had a low opinion of him and predicted a disaster when the crown came to him. He was well known to have been unfaithful to his wife, Queen Alexandra, and had several mistresses, most notably the famous Alice Keppel. I will not restate the obvious regarding her, although it is a remarkable coincidence.
But King Edward proved them all wrong, and turned out to be a fine statesman, especially with foreign diplomacy regarding an alliance with France. His reign was a short one, lasting only nine years. But history has vindicated him very well, and his legacy was admirable, IMHO.
You can clearly see certain similarities between King Edward VII and Prince Charles. His reign will probably be comparatively short, but might he also surprise his critics the way his great-great grandfather did? Let’s wait and see.
I understand mistresses were pretty much an accepted fact of life in that era. We’ve become much more prudish about this. Alice was invited by Alexandra to sit the death vigil with her, unless I’ve been misinformed or am not remembering correctly.
I’ve read the same thing about Queen Alexandra’s invitation to Mrs. Keppel. But not having been there, I can’t say I know anything for sure!
British history suggests that mistresses are fine and tolerated. Prince of Wales surely loved their mistresses. However, if I am not mistaken, no King actually married one and made her Queen. That is a tremendous threshold to cross, historically.
Because mistresses were just for recreation. Wives were all about marriage politics. They weren’t allowed to marry someone they loved back then, and that was unfortunately still true when Charles was coerced into marrying Lady Diana Spencer.
I might argue that is because selection of a future Queen/spouse is more than a mere amorous consideration. The symbolism and stately responsibilities are exceedingly important. The emblematic duties and responsibilities that go with being the mother of a nation, the wife of the head of The Church of England, the visible face of a nation, the diplomatic top of the food chain should warrant the selection of someone who will not cultivate political, diplomatic, religious nor nationalistic divide or animus. I think Charles’ reign is going to be negatively impacted by universal negative and controversial perceptions of his second wife/Queen, and that won’t be ideal for the nation or Commonwealth, nor the coming popularity of the Monarchy.
The case(s) of Henry VIII comes to mind.
Yes, I am enjoying the wait. It will be sad when Elizabeth passes. Charles may then be in the same place she is now–oldest still in the job and needing a lot of help, by the time he ascends. If so William gets to shift into the kind of role Charles is doing now. They are healthy and tend toward long-lived. I suspect he will be successful and he’s getting loads of practice.
Makes Her Majesty certainly too old, doesn’t that!
The facts are the facts, please stop being an arse kisser. She was a pig who could not keep her legs closed when the ring went on Diana’s finger and not her own. Bottom line no matter what the circumstances it does not justify sleeping with another woman’s husband and cheating on your own. She is a moraless, unscrupulous guttersnipe. The minute he was married she should have backed away, and he is as much of a sleaze for using a naive girl as a brood mare. They deserve each other. Whom needs to grow up is you. The one who thinks adultery, and marriage under false pretenses is acceptable if the excuse is right! It’s called “being an adult”, which clearly neither one of them were. The idea you would even entertain an excuse for them is disgusting at best, and disturbing at worst. Never mind pathetic and disrespectful to the memory of a mother of a future king.
I don’t think Charles and Camilla were perfect but I don’t think Diana was any more perfect. She was manipulative and enjoyed the limelight and, yes, she did deliberately upstaged Prince Charles. We don’t know what went on in the marriage so how can we judge? How many people on here also committed adultery or have been unkind? All guilty probably. Let’s move on. About the title, there is no reason why she should not been Queen but I think the titles should be made the same so that either the wife of the King becomes a Princess Consort or the husband of a Queen in her own right becomes King Consort. There should not be a difference as there is at the moment.
She was known to contact the press to let them know when she was taking the boys someplace fun they could be photographed. They all have/had issues. By golly, just really human beings after all. What a relief to me. I love them all.
Wasn’t it proven that Diana was equally unfaithful to Charles? I mean there have been questions about who Harry’s father is (before everyone starts i know the dates don’t line right up). It would appear that Charles and Diana were simply a toxic couple. They both cheated… get over it.
Good point. And if one really looks at Harry, he’s so Charles in the eyes and nose and Diana’s sister Sarah elsewhere. Hard to miss for anyone with an eye for sketching and painting; who cares about dates.
Yes, she has been misjudged. Charles and Diana were not meant to be and they were both in a sad situation. Charles loves her and her step sons love her. She has had more balanced opinions of her written. She works to help causes she believes in and has been loyal. We need to not hold her responsible for what happened. We need to move on and let the family be happy.
Yes! Rational and Loving. Both things in somewhat short supply too often. Living in the past, holding grudges, these things are sad.
What a kerfuffle over naught. When the Prince of Wales accedes the throne, his wife will be Queen Consort. If the King and Queen choose not to use her legal title, so be it. Royal titles are not subject to popularity polls.
Regarding the Camilla vs Diana battle, I have this observation to make: Charles is now happy. His two sons reportedly approve and are happy to see their father happy. Her Majesty also appears to approve of and enjoy the company of the Duchess of Cornwall. Who are any of us to judge the merits or deficits of the Prince’s marriages? If one is looking to assign blame, let’s look to Prince Phillip, who told Charles Camilla wouldn’t do, then insisted Charles marry the sweet, naive Diana, a lady with whom Charles had no shared interests or anything in common.
Let’s move on, shall we?
Very well said!
Thank you. Some sanity and clearly presented thoughts added to this conversation.
my biggest annoyance is that Charles was ab le to get away with Spouse abuse!
Of what do you speak?
the verbal and mental abuse!
My understanding is she gave back as good as she got.
And he suffered her tantrums, screaming and shouting fits in silence. A true gentleman. She wasn’t much of a lady in those days. Though I’ll give her that she quite became one once she matured a bit and got out of the situation. That marriage being over was the best thing for every one concerned.
How do you know this? Were you there? Does bashing Diana make YOU feel good?
You have expressed your pleasure at Camilla-bashing, and most of your reasons for it are debatable. Amni is simply stating facts, and I don’t see anywhere how what she said was bashing anyone. Diana WAS naive and volatile when she was younger. If you insist upon your right to hate and bash Camilla, unfounded or not, certainly others have the right to state facts about someone.
Naive to believe her husband would be faithful to her and volatile when he wasn’t? Totally understandable.
How do you know Diana “naive” or “volatile” anyway? Sounds like bashing to me.
Here is a clue. No Camilla then no tantrums screaming or shouting. Simple. How do you know she did this anyway?
But if tradition and precedent is the going argument in her favor as a future Queen, should she not also have been found to be a virgin before marital consideration, and not be a woman with a former husband, who is still living no less, and with biological offspring of her own, predating marriage?! Has this EVER happened in English history? Where is the precedent for such a Queen? What role will be accorded to her children within the “Royal” family. All legitimate questions.
Of course it has. There is nothing new under the sun. Edward IV married Elizabeth Woodville, a English widow with two sons. And a Lancastrian widow, to boot. Caused quite the scandal, and pushed Warwick the Kingmaker into the arms (politically speaking) of the King of France and Margarite d’Anjou.
Let’s all accuse Camilla being a witch and make her life just as difficult as Queen Elizabeth’s. At least Elizabeth’s first husband was DEAD.
My, that was rather snarky. Yes, Sir John Grey was dead. Fighting for the losing side. Elizabeth set out to improve her, and her sons’, position by ensnaring the King. Worked out fairly well, too. Charles and Camilla were an item before Lady Diana Spenser ever entered the picture. This entire scenario is due to people clinging to outmoded ideas. Instead of advising his son to marry a woman he loved, and would assist and support him, Prince Philip wanted Charles to marry an aristocratic virgin. And we see how well *that* worked out. And luckily, accusing a female opponent of being a witch is no longer an effective tactic.
There actually would be no act of Parliament or any action needed by the government concerning the consort title were she to decide to take the title Queen, Princess Consort or Snuggles the Big Haired one- the Monarchy (Currently HM the Queen, at that time it you be Charles the King) is the Fount of Honor, with means that titles are at the personal discretion and do NOT have to be approved by the Government. The only government role in titles is for example, in 1953 they changed the title of the Queen to Of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but that was because they changed the name of the nation as a whole. The Duke of Edinburgh gave up his titles before marriage, and George VI gave him back the HRH and the DoE title, the Queen then once again gave him the title of “Prince” back allowing him to once again be Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh. Just as she allowed her aunts to go by the title of Princess Alice and Princess Marina, even though they were by marriage (Marina was entitled to be called “Princess” since that is what she was born as was Princess of Greece and Denmark, Alice however was not but was given that name) the only legal effect that has to take place with a title is for the Queen to issue the Letters Patent, which notifies the people that the title has been issued, or in the case of Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah, Duchess of York, changed or downgraded. No legality involeved
but when our queen was put on the throne she was young and has done a good job its a life job with no reprieve . but Camilla is a divorcee . and no I don’t hate her I have never met her but I don’t like the underhand affair she had I have strict rules on marriage and that’s one man one woman
I agree with your assessment
I would be very happy to see His Royal Highness Prince Charles of Wales become King after the passing of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. As to Her Royal Duchess of Cornwall , Camilla Parker Bowles becoming Queen is Suitable. Reason is because it would be a balanced Monarch for Great Britain, Common Wealth, and Defender of the Faith. It would be shameful for calling His Royal Highness Prince Charles of Wales, King and calling the Duchess of Cornwall would suit to reduce in Public Eyes of a Lower Tittle. She has been self sacrificing since her Marriage of Royal Duties from the beginning of their Marriage. She has performed so many Royal Duties with His Royal Highness Prince Charles of Wales for the Monarchy and that would fit the British Royal Family.
Camilla Parker Bowles is a celebrity stalker and stalked Prince Charles from puberty and deliberately destroyed a marriage, a mother and apparently is perpetrating Elder abuse on her Majesty Queen Elizabeth 11 and allegedly is perpetrating male spousal on Prince Charles now . These statements are not allegations and are true based upon the best current accurate data available. The answer is NO and we hold faith with Princess Diana. GOD save the Queen
I would be very interested to learn the basis for your claim that Queen Elizabeth II (not the 11th) is being abused. She has her family, a large staff, and Royal Protection officers around her at all times, and I don’t think anyone could ever get away with mistreating or abusing her.
I find your claim of the Duchess of Cornwall’s abuse against the Prince of Wales outrageous as well for the same reasons.
If you know something the rest of us don’t, I would urge you to inform Scotland Yard.
Time to move on, Camilla was not the only guilty part, a share of the blame was on Diana side too,if you marry in the royal family you need to play by the rules
ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!! CAMILLA DOES NOT HAVE THE POISE, CLASS NOR GRACE TO BE CONSIDERED ANYTHING BUT THE WHORE, DRUNK AND HOME WRECKER THAT SHE IS!!!!!! SHE SHOULD NOT BE QUEEN OF ANYTHING OTHER THAN QUEEN OF THE NIGHT!!! WHAT A DISGRACE TO THE MONARCHY ……
You lose all credibility when you shout – and yes, using all caps when you type is still considered shouting by internet standards. And by the way – whores get paid for a living to do what they do. So by no stretch of the imagination is Camilla a whore. Please grow up.
I WILL NEVER GROW UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don’t agree that Camilla should become queen cos prince Philip is not king even though he is married to queen Elizabeth so why should it change 4 Camilla
The issue of Prince Philip not being King is a whole different one and relates to common law rather than ‘snubbing’ titles. The wife of every previous English (and then British) King has been a Queen.
There was a time when the thought of a woman reigning in her own right was considered bizarre and all Queens were wives of Kings. Once woman started to become Queens in their own rights, the question of what their husbands were is still unanswered after all these centuries.
Obviously the British monarchy does whatever they want. They change rules (Charles marrying Camilla) to their liking. Phillip isn’t King. Why should Camilla be Queen? I guess she is bossy and gets her way. What about morals? There is no point in voicing an opinion as they are going to do whatever they want. They are “royalty” and they can do that. Charles and Camilla are happy. Can’t that be enough? The woman appears to rule Charles and wants to rule Phillip and the Queen. The woman comes across as evil and is not royal material. By the way………why do they even need a monarchy? I am SO happy my family isn’t British!!
When they were married the magistrate proclaimed she would be known as consort. I feel this is what should happen. despite what she has done in the past nine years I dont think she should be given the power that the title of Queen comes with.
It was never said that it had been absolutely decided, only that it was the intention at that time.
There is no “power” in the title of Queen Consort, for two reasons. 1) Queen Consorts are not the reigning monarch. They are the spouse of the reigning monarch, i.e. the King. 2) The monarchy in the UK is a constitutional one. Therefore, Kings and Queens no longer rule, they reign.
No magistrate ever said any such thing; then or now.
For the umpteenth time, this idea of Camilla taking the title of “Princess Consort” was something said to the press because of the public feeling against her at the time.
But the public opinion has gradually changed during the intervening years, and more people in Britain now support the idea of her having the title of Queen Consort.
I refer you to an excellent new article here at Royal Central that tells about this in detail.
Wait a minute here. The Queen’s husband’s title is Prince Consort not King, but when Charles becomes King Camilla is going to be given the title of Queen. That makes Camilla higher in rank than Philip, does anyone else just see this as wrong.
I don’t think would be right
why was Prince Philip never made Kingno I don’t think she should be queenshe is a divorced woman and therefore not entitled to the title of Queens
When and where was the rule made that a divorced woman cannot become Queen?
Time may have passed but the fact still remains that both Camilla and Charles ruined the life of a true magnificent women. Their behaviour and conduct was inappropriate to say the least and to think just because time has passed and they both have what they always wanted which was to be together that we are now some how meant to forget how they got where they are today. Do we really believe that Charles and Cammila are suitable role models for our future children and leaders. It is one thing to ask the public to have compassion and respect for this women given all the good she had done but to ask us to be happy and proud to put a crown on her head and ask her to represent England is pushing it a little too far given the past. You talk about tradition but wasn’t that all thrown out the window when Charles and Diana divorced.
I’m an American by birth whose relatives came from England and Norway. In the United States, everyone has a right to his or her own opinion. In this case, because I completely disagree with this author, I’m letting his comments go in one ear and out the other. In my opinion, when Camilla becomes Queen, we’ll see England go into complete turmoil (understatement of the century). Camilla is putting on an enormous ACT that many British folks are buying hook, line and sinker which is why I’m thankful that my relatives moved to the United States because I personally don’t want to be in England when all hell breaks loose and it will.
Why Is Prince Philip Not King Philip?
I do not want to have Queen Camilla and I still want prince William and Princess Katie
It’s a Monarchy.
Be patient; William’s time will come in due course.
If nothing more it will be fun watching these two idiots as monarchs. I feel sorry for Great Britain…and what it used to be.
She is where she is because she whored herself to get there. A king had to give up his throne because he loved and married a divorcee. Charles whored himself with Camilla before and after his marriage to Diana. He is divorced, she is divorced. Neither should rule. Of course the queen gave him a dispensation to marry the whore and will give him another to become king even though he is married to a divorcee!! Sounds like things are twisted to which everway they want!
1. King Edward VIII did not have to give up his throne; he had choices and it was his decision to abdicate.
2. The King married Mrs. Simpson after the abdication, so the marriage could not have played a part in his leaving.
3. Prince Charles won’t be the first King to be divorced, and I would point out that King Henry VIII stayed on the throne throughout his marriages. Such things have no bearing on whether or not a Prince of Wales becomes King.
4. There is no rule or precedent barring a divorced person from inheriting the throne of the United Kingdom. The monarch inherits that position; it’s not decided by an election, as you apparently would prefer.
5. Queen Elizabeth II does not need to, nor has she issued any kind of dispensation for the Prince of Wales to inherit the throne in due course.
6. You wrote that “things are twisted to which everway they want,” but it seems to me that you’ve done a great deal of twisting yourself. I have tried to untangle and clarify a few things you don’t seem to understand.
I really don’t believe Camilla should be Queen Consort when Charles inherits the crown. Granted, they were both divorced before Diana, Princess of Wales died. However, as head of the Church of England when he inherits the crown, he should be upholding the laws of the Church of England. How can he do that when he married a divorcee in a civil ceremony. The blessing at St. George’s Chapel, where they acknowledged and asked for forgiveness for their sins against others, was a joke. I am a monarchist and a supporter of the Royal Family but there is no way I can support her becoming Queen Consort. They are coming to Nova Scotia next week and there is no way I will be making an effort to see them. I just can’t condone their past behaviour in any way, shape or form.
I am British by birth and feel that She should not be known as Queen Camilla. I would prefer That Charles was passed over but since that is not likely then King and Consort would suffice since she is previously divorced. And no I do not acknowledge her as the Princess of Wales either – that is and always will be the title of Princess Diana.
I am not British, but if the British want to be true to tradition, remember the Prince of Wales and Wallis Warfield Simpson (remember this issue was shown in the movie The King’s Speech). When he came to the throne, he was not allowed to marry Simpson because she was a divorcee, so he abdicated before his coronation, they married , and became the Duke and Duchess of Windsor. They were essentially banished from England for the rest of their lives. Because of his abdication, his brother, Elizabeth’s father, came to the throne. Also remember Princess Margaret, Queen Elizabeth’s sister. Margaret was in love with Group Captain Peter Townsend, who was divorced. Margaret was not allowed to marry him without giving up her place in line for the throne, which she did not want to do even though she was in line behind all of Elizabeth’s children and any grandchildren as yet unborn. So Margaret gave up this man she loved, eventually married Lord Snowdon whom she apparently did not love, and later divorced. Again, if the British want to hold with tradition, these are the traditions. If Charles becomes King, then why was the Duke of Wales unable to marry Simpson. If Charles does become King, it seems Camilla would not be entitled to the title of Queen. But if Charles is allowed to become King, the British have already broken their traditions, and would be just making it up as they go along.
Supposedly the “Church of England” had “relaxed its rules” in recent years. Unfair I know.
If you want to talk about what is tradition,,, then was cheating and betraying a Princess already in the royal family a TRADITION? you can’t have your cake and eat it to in most situations. I personally feel she is forced to do all that she does, to keep the image going. I really don’t see how the people can accept her when they hardly accept him. Life is filled with morals, and if you are so important to be a part of the Royal Family, then respect and dignity should be two of the key factors a person must show and neither of them did that. Just because of a “Title” does not excuse you to be a cheater, home wrecker, and destroy the lives of other’s. Princess Diana carried her role well, and no one could ever replace her, and take a moment to think of Camilla’s family what they went through. Her husband was also cheated on. I again must highlight on the fact that Camilla is being told what she needs to do and how to act so that she can somewhat look like a Royal. you say to look at what kind of person she is and not for what she did,, well, what a person does or did, shows exactly what kind of person she IS. It would be a disgrace in my eyes if they allow her to come forward with such a title as Queen. William and Kate need to be placed up on that throne, two people who have respect for each other and the people they represent. Times have changed such as you have said, well, this should also be a change that should be permitted, NOT TO ALLOW HER TO HOLD THAT HONORABLE TITLE !!
How much did Charles and Camilla pay you for this article? Camilla should be called the “QUEEN OF THE WHORE” I read in one of the article the reason why Charles can’t leave Camilla because Camilla is not only good BUT VERY GOOD in bed!
Hannah, four questions if you please;
1. What whore is Camilla the queen of?
2. Are you well-informed about all aspects of her personal life?
3. Do you believe every bit of gossip you read from every available source?
4. Are you so morally superior that you’ve earned the right to pass such a harsh judgement on someone you’ve never met, and who has done nothing to you?
Don’t be Naive! The whole world knows Who Camilla is! A HOME WRECKER, AND SHE WANTS POWER AND ATTENTION. SHE LEAVES HER HUSBAND FOR TITLE. SHE WANTS TO BE A QUEEN AND SHE WANTS CHARLES HER FAVORITE TOY!!!!!!
You do know that Andrew Parker-Bowles had a mistress of his own for much of their marriage, right? He’s now married to her. Is she also a Queen of the Whore? Or what about the numerous affairs Diana had. She was a mistress to several men, married and unmarried. She broke up at least one marriage, possibly two. Is she then also a Queen of the Whore? Where do we draw the line?
Rosemary Parker Bowles is now deceased. It wouldn’t surprise me if APB visits Camilla once in a while so he won’t be “lonely”.
Prince Phillip is NOT King Phillip. It would be sensible to take the middle road to call Camilla, HRH Princess Consort. It would be a way of making most people happy.
Nooooooo way is she gonna be queen move over Charles let William and Kate be our next king and Queen.
Une femme divorcé ne doit pas être reine que deviendrais alors les valeurs de la monarchie si une chose pareille voyait le jour !! en plus ceux qui aimait Diana seront totalement contre et vont hurler !!!
hi what ever said and done if she becomes queen that will be the end of the monachy ….the young royals will cope . but that will be the end . people do not like her nor charles but they love the young royals like william and kate and harry and george .please if they want to keep this royal business going and not get pushed out like in france..and french revolution ….make william king..that marriage will last as it solid. otherwise where ever camilla goes people will follow what happen to bush jr and hilary clington recently…boots.
I agree speaking from Canada , when the Queen is here she is our Queen. I think you are correct. It so obviousl that Prince Charles is so much happier now having the support of Camilla. The Queen has been clear that she depends on her husband to support her in her job. Charles needs the same
Camilla should never be Queen she can stand by Charles but she will never have the respect of the average British people. Diana was loved to much and more so now seeing William Kate and Diana’s grandson George she helped make the royal family back in favour and supported as it is today William and Harry are the future.
Nobody respects Charles or Camilla. They were wreck-less with their behavior. He never loved Diana. He only married her to try to prove to mommy that he was ready to be king. Diana was nothing more than a throne donor for him. Do people really want that curse on their throne? Why don’t you think mommy won’t give up the throne? You are an embarrassment. And your selfish actions regarding your marriage to Diana and your love for Camilla proves that you’ll do anything to get what “you” want, not what’s best for the people! Shameful….Charles and Camilla! You don’t deserve to represent your family!
Well publicized? Tabloids that also talk about aliens taking over Angela Merkel’s body, and “a friend of a friend of a friend” really aren’t credible sources. But believe what you want, and be happy in your ignorance and virtriolic comments. Clearly that’s all you have in your sad, pathetic life.
Not to jump the gun, but what will Camilla’s title be after Charles dies and William is the King? Assuming she outlives Charles, and they do become King regnant and Queen Consort, of course. Queen Mother doesn’t seem quite appropriate, as she is not William’s mother. But Dowager Queen sounds so stuffy and outdated.
If Charles dies after his accession, she would be known as Her Majesty Queen Camilla.
Yes, there is precedent for this. Queen Mary was known as The Queen Mother until Elizabeth II’s accession when she became known as just ‘Queen Mary’ – if the circumstances described ever arose, this would likely be the style chosen.
Je ne sais pas comment dire cela en anglais et peut-être cela ne plaira pas à tout le monde mais pitié pas Camillia pour remplacer la reine, après tout ceux qu’elle dit de travers tout ce qu’elle fait de travers ce serait une calamité, en plus tous ceux qui aimait lady diana même si c’était une femme généreuse, auront honte si cette cruche devenait reine !
Isn’t it almost all but assured that Charles is going to abdicate regardless and hand the throne to William? Perhaps I am wrong, but that was my understanding of general consensus and kind of makes this an entirely moot issue.
It most certainly is not true that Prince Charles will abdicate. He has had a lifetime of preparation for his role as King, and he is eager to fulfill his destiny. He has gained a great deal of experience and accomplished much during his time as Prince of Wales, and I believe he will make a fine monarch.
The Windsors see abdication as a shameful thing, and neither Prince Charles nor Queen Elizabeth II will ever do it.
If camilla PB becomes Queen, I would vote to dissolve the Monarchy. She is an embarassment to the crown. Who wants a drunk with lose morals for a Queen. I certainly don’t! She is a con artist to boot.
To receive the latest Royal Central posts straight to your email inbox, enter your email address below and press subscribe.
Join 406 other subscribers