Why Camilla must become our Queen

26 January 2014 - 12:14am
Edited by Cindy Stockman
Spotted an Error?


Blogger
SHARE: 

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.

origin_9409339190

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 nine 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 the 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.

Advertisment

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.

large_8719658479

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


Spotted an Error?


  • Karen119

    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.

    • Royal Central

      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.

      • Guest

        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

      • Edith Cruz

        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

        • VikkiB

          All explained previously. But basically ‘king’ is a higher ranking than “queen’. So, if Prince Phillip became King Phillip, he would rank higher than the Queen, which of course, would not be correct. Hope this helps.

        • Kathleen Ames

          Please read earlier replies, get some knowledge of British Royalty. When a Queen is the monarch (as HM Queen Elizabeth is) then her husband cannot hold a higher title therefore HRH The Prince Phillip could not be called King.

    • Kathleen Ames

      Please. You are talking about unnecessarily changing 1000 years of history. What is wrong with Queen as wife of the King?

  • Ricky

    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.

    • Peter

      Well said Ricky. My thoughts entirely.

    • Neil

      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.

      • yo sivs

        OMG … Neil the Prud should be you name. Or Neil the Double Standard. Amorous conversations between consenting partners are no-one’s business. I’m sure much more intimate conversations occur between lovers.

      • John Balme

        Charles will be king and his wife WILL be Queen,that is how it is,live with it,that is how it has been for over 1000 years and will be for the next 1000 years.GOD SAVE THE QUEEN

        • VikkiB

          Please tell me when the last divorcee, not of Royal blood was made Queen.

          • Georgie bickerstaff

            Camilla cheated on her husband and children wrecked a home and family, by having an affair with Charles she continued to cheat and wrecked Diana’s marriage home and family Diana was devestated by divorce and having to share her sons she adored , Camilla hurt cheated and lied to many people to get what she wanted but was not prepared to leave her own young children before Charles married Diana and tell the truth , the whole sorry story could have been avoided the sight of William and Harry at their mums funeral was heartbreaking they adored their mum as she did them Camilla hurt those children by her presence in their fathers life do as you please to adults not children

          • Kathleen Ames

            Is that relevant? We are living in the 21st century

          • Anne Williams

            I wonder if some would look up the DIVORCE rates in Britain and those ‘living in sin’ !!!as partners and those living as single mothers in our country.Moreover , Camilla’s husband was quite a ladykiller himself. I’d far rather a loyal , supportive, sensible, divorced woman as a Royal wife than a glamour Queen..I also hope we will stop seeing the windblown bare bottoms of Royal spouses, possibly with thong pants (strings) Those absolutely UNHYGENIC instruments of torture, modern women wear and the naked romps of some in the higher echelons too especially when on official visits for the entire WORLD to see. I had supposed a bit of common sense had been injected into the younger members of late.Have not seen any other WIFE of a Pres. or politician so attired. A skirt , especially a short one, if it is NOT a straight one gets WINDBLOWN especially when climbing the STEPS of an aircraft. Most of us women of vintage years who have flown know this full well. The Royal ladies and wives of World leaders all seem to dress sensibly at the moment except ours?? If they want to be GLamorous do it with GRACE and respect for your Country and of the others you visit too.

        • Shelley Dagenais

          That is not how it was for the king who gave up to throne for the one who he loved. This branch of the royal family would not be even on the throne if he demanded to stay.

          • Ricky

            The succession would have been exactly the same if King Edward VIII had remained on the throne, only delayed for twenty years. The present Queen would have been next in line when Edward died in 1972.

          • Ricky

            Yes, I am quite correct. When friends would ask the Duchess of Windsor why she and the Duke had no children, she would reply that her husband was “not heir-conditioned.” This is because of a case of mumps he caught at around the age of 9, which interfered with his hormonal development.

            BTW, is that really you, Audrey? You didn’t use any filthy language in your comment, which leads me to wonder if your account has been hacked.

          • Kathleen Ames

            The Duke of Windsor’s ability, or not, to father children, is pure speculation. Truth is more likely that Wallis did not want any. She had already had two husbands and no children and there were many rumours and speculation about her sexuality and ability.

          • Ricky

            By your own admission, your point is based on rumours and speculation. My reference came from people who knew the Duchess personally and got this information directly from her.

            The naval boarding school epidemic of mumps that rendered the Duke incapable of fathering children has been explained in several books by serious authors.

            There are accounts from men who showered with the Duke at sport facilities who have said he had almost no body hair. One of them elaborated a bit when he added, “not even where one would most expect to see it.” Others have said that he rarely needed to shave.

            Because of all this, I do believe what the Duchess told some of her close friends is true.

          • Kathleen Ames

            Forgive me but at no time have I said I speculated or listened to rumour, that is your assumption. I grew up with the story and have read extensively everything written by and about them. At no point in his history has it been, nor would it ever be revealed officially or by his physicians that the Duke was impotent. On the other hand two previous husbands of the late Duchess of Windsor did disclose that she was not as interested in the intimate side of life as would have been suspected by her flirtatious behaviour. And, it cannot be denied that in three marriages, she had neither children nor showed an inclination to have them. Her first two husbands did have children. There were many stories of her unusual sexuality to the end of her life. But these are also rumour and speculation as are your remarks about the Duke’s impotence. Wallis was totally wrapped up in Wallis and that is a plausible explanation as to why there were no children and, believe it or not, in the 1930’s it was not usual for women to start a family at her age, being considered much too old. These are things some will speculate forever but they are not fact.

          • Anne Williams

            A TV Doc recently had the most recent research into the Duchess of Windsor)and revealed Wallis Simpson’s letters to her unfortunate, divorced hubby. They revealed all too well that she did NOT want to marry the Duke but was very concerned about his state of mind and suicidal thoughts if she left him and regretted her decision.We were very lucky she acted as she did for by the Duke’s decision to abdicate’ we then had a wonderful, courageous King (George 6th)strongly supported by his wonderful wife, the Duchess of York,Lady Elizabeth Bowes Lyon , our Queen Mum and family to reign when our Country was in great peril.
            Some of us were War babes so thank heaven, the Royal family were present during WW2 and after as I made my Girl Guides promise to do duty to that KING!! Whether the Duke of Windsor was infertile or not is of NO importance at all. There were spares!. There have also been the most vile rumours in an American publication about the Queen Mum and the abilities of poor King Geo. 6th himself.!! The Duke was very concerned and bitter, Wallis was not made an HRH and so was the late Princess Diana.If in her position, I would think., “There are many more fish in the sea” keep a very low profile for my children’s sake and MOVE ON. But we had all the SHOCKING and despicable antics of MI6 or whoever re: the notorious tapes affecting both parties . Had they no shame, not an ounce of pity at all ,advertising the trauma of others WORLDWIDE?? They absolutely crucified Prince Charles without the tiniest notion of , “It takes two to Tango” Diana had the grace herself to later admit to her own faults.But “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned” and she began on the path of destruction without thought of ANYONE. A great pity she did not have “good shoulders to cry on and advice.

          • Kathleen Ames

            Hi Anne – been looking at some of your responses and am delighted to find I agree you. As to the one above I would make a few comments. There were many who believed that the comments in the late Duchess of Windsors’ letters (which were always carefully worded according to whom she thought their content would be relayed) were a vote for sympathy and a reflection that she became afraid that she would forever be branded as the woman who forced a King to abdicate (which came true). It was also believed that she was mercenary and she was afraid the abdication would put her and the Duke (as he became) into obscurity and poverty which, to an extent was true. She, unlike him, was a party animal. They were certainly shunned for many years by ‘society’ and had to rely on friends abroad for company and hospitality. She apparently absolutely loathed the fact that they were posted to Bermuda as she was cut off from the world. It is also commonly believed that, had their affair been allowed to run it’s course she would have tired of Edward and ended the relationship. He was definitely more smitten than she. She probably merely enjoyed the excitement of the limelight. The death of Edward’s father brought matters to a head. The Duke’s impotence or otherwise would have been important if he had become King because his children would have had priority over Elizabeth hence Parliament refusing him ‘and his successors’ from inheriting or claiming any rights to the throne. All now water under the bridge.
            The HRH for the Duchess of Windsor is quite different from that of the late Diana. The Duchess of Windsor was entitled and so called as the wife of the Duke but was never granted the style HRH. Diana was granted HRH as wife of the Prince of Wales who was heir to the throne, but lost that style when they divorced.

          • Anne Williams

            I think the Windsors were posted to the Bahamas where that awful murder occurred of Sir (grey cells fail here)with his son in law
            of the deceased under suspicion and taken into custody when the Duke was Governor. It was found that he may have been involved in an illegal investment of funds! // I am in awe of your marvellous knowledge of Royal protocol and titles.//Once the Honour of Wallingford was also passed down with that of Cornwall when it had a very strong castle, the last to hold out during the Civil War which in consequence was utterly ravaged by ‘dear’ old Cromwell.The area around,including Ewelme (had a mini palace) where KIng Henry 8th lodged and hunted and where his dau, Eliz 1st too walked up Lover’s Lane with her favourite,Robert, Earl of Liecs,.who also granted that honour. I think His house (Culham)where his wife fell down the stairs and died is also near.Abingdon over the river…Was it accidental or was it not? The mystery lingers on as it does today over another.”There is nothing new under the sun” in that respect. I Did read that it was found that Robert’s wife had osteoporosis (we of mature years fear) and may have fallen like Cilla Black who was ‘falling apart’ as she remarked. Alice, Duchess of Suffolk is buried in our village church, She was grand daughter of poet Geoffrey Chaucer and , wife of Chancellor, Her father, Thomas’s tomb is also here.They are descended from Kath. Roet descended and John of Gaunt whose illegitimate but later legitimised? offspring eventually caused the War of the Roses warred ending in Poor De La Pole’s execution which took a few strokes of a rusty sword too.// It’s quite amazing that King Hussein of Jordan had two divorces but remained such a very nice and beloved King of his people.

          • Kathleen Ames

            Well she would hardly admit it was her fault or that she didn’t want children would she? The fact that the PRince suffered mumps does not necessarily mean he was impotent. Many, many recover quite safely including my own father who went on to father three children. As I said, mere speculation used as an excuse for a rather odd couple who did not for one reason or another produce children.

          • Ricky

            It could be said that everything about this subject is speculation, since no one with direct knowledge is still living. All we have is second hand information, also the fertile imaginations of tabloid newspaper reporters. So who can say for sure?

            You’re correct that most men who had mumps during that stage of childhood have recovered and were able to father children. There are also many who were made infertile due to the virus’ interference in their glandular development at a crucial stage, including myself.

            That’s the reason this passage in the biography of the Duke I read has stayed with me all these years. Whether it was correct or not, I can identify with the situation.

      • Wendy

        You narrow minded person can’t you see it was Diana who ruined the reputation of the monarcy. Ok I agree she was a good mother but I never liked her from the start. She showed a shy, coy person but for me her looks were more sly. She knew what she was getting into when she married into the royal family and don’t forget she was the instigation to the failure of Andrew and Fergies marriage. Give over slating Charles and look into the things he does for the british people instead.

        • audrey pard

          The Royal family needed the fine Spencer bloodline with more true Royal English bloodlines than the Windsor’s. Sadly, the Windsor bloodline was somewhat polluted with such dreadfully poor genes historically found in the Windsor family (this was made considerably
          worse by the Queen Mother who had FIVE cousins detained for their lifetimes in mental institutions each certified as a retarded imbecile (inbreeding!). Disturbingly, Prince Philips psychotic deranged mother was also committed to a mental institution, she died after decades of incarceration being permitted to spend her last two years locked in a secure room at Buckingham Palace. Camilla was totally, totally unsuitable due to being an impure whore (apparently riddled with numerous STD’s having been a prostitute since a girl) together
          with her worthless maternal family of whores having documented congenital syphilis! Furthermore, The Queen and Prince Philip are cousin’s too so perhaps it’s understandable that Charles is mentally challenged and inbred – wanting to be his whores TAMPAX and talking to plants! Frankly Charles should have been aborted – soon he will hopefully be blown up together with his whore by terrorists!

        • VikkiB

          Well you hit the nail on the head when you said you never liked her, so obviously you are more than a little biased. As for ruining the reputation of the monarchy, that is just your opinion, thousands of others would say she increased the popularity of the monarchy.

          • Kathleen Ames

            She did initially it is true. But she went on to nearly destroy it with her bitter campaign. She was the Original ‘women scorned’.

        • Monica Cunningham

          Diana was not the Saint people say she was, she was a trouble maker, spoilt young lady who wanted all her own way.

          • Cat Figueroa

            I’m sure you know everything huh???

          • Kathleen Ames

            Absolutely. Trouble and troubled (hiding Bulimia for example) from the beginning

        • Kathleen Ames

          I loved her at the start and followed every move so I genuinely was not biased. But she was bad news for our royal family. She was, I believe, a good mother, but let us not forget that she had not seen her boys for several weeks before she died while cavorting round the Mediterranean with the Fayed family hogging the limelight, and, that she died as a result of her insatiable need for being in the public eye.

      • j. lagarde

        amen you are so right

      • Kathleen Ames

        That was their business not the world’s nor yours any more than what you do in your own home is mine. If Diana had any decency or sanity she would not have allowed that telephone call to be published

    • Liz Cousins

      That’s not true Ricky because the current queens husband is only a prince

      • Ozark Granny

        Bravo for having the courage to point out this fact.

      • Royal Central

        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.

    • Frank Hill

      Shouldn’t he fall under the same rules as his uncle. Not to marry a divorced women or to abdocate his throne?

      • Royal Central

        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.

        • audrey pard

          Members of the Royal family are excepted from the provisions of the Marriage Act 1949, and their marriages in England and Wales MUST be performed by Anglican clergy. There would be no obstacle to The Prince of Wales remarrying in Scotland as did his sister The Princess Royal where the Royal Family are not excepted from the provisions of the Scottish Marriage legislation. ‘TAMPAX’ CHARLES ‘MARRIAGE’ IS
          ILLEGAL BECAUSE HE REMARRIED IN ENGLAND AND HE WAS AWARE OF IT WHEN HE ILLEGALLY ‘MARRIED’ THE VILE adulterous CAMILLA WHORE

      • Ricky

        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.

        • Cheryl Webb Clair

          And there were forces working to make sure he did exactly what he did. Stanley Baldwin and Cosmo Lang were forces to be reckoned with. They knew he would not have been a good king. His own father knew that. He would have handed England over to Hitler with a smile. What happened in 1936 was what needed to happen. Times have changed. Camilla should be Queen. And I think if Diana were alive today, she would agree. Before her death, she and Charles had made peace with each other and had even become friends again. He was devastated by her death and he was the one that insisted she have more of a state funeral.

          • Shelley Dagenais

            She wanted her daughter to become the Queen and that would keep her in the history books.

          • Cheryl Webb Clair

            Shelley Dagenais, you simply have no idea what you are talking about. I don’t know what you’ve been reading, but whatever it is, it’s rubbish. Rubbish.

          • audrey pard

            The MAJORITY of ENGLISH people want the next sovereign to be William NOT Charles and certainly not his vile STD and pox raddled old whore camilla! Hopefully these two parasites will both come
            to an end quite soon with a bang – just like uncle dickie! Due to
            camillas highly promiscuous history; Syphilis as a teenager – free with sexual favours etc together with the fact her family are of no consequence. camillas pox riddled mother was from a family of whores too and her father was BANKRUPT and only a (war substantive) Major in the British army!

          • Cheryl Webb Clair

            What a vile person you must be. Just nasty and vile. To say such awful things about a person and their family, especially without any proof, is just wicked. And to wish death on anyone is just awful. May God have mercy on your soul.

          • Ricky

            Why do you come to a site called “Royal Central” if you feel that way about the Royal Family?

            You’ve posted so many hateful comments with the filthiest language possible, and it leaves me wondering what your purpose is. You repeatedly accuse members of the royal family of terrible things, but you offer no proof to back up these claims.

            You must be a very unhappy person to leave so many of these poisonous posts, and I hope the editor will delete them all.

          • Ricky

            Still busy with your poison pen, I see. I’m surprised you haven’t been banned from our site, or at least had all your comments deleted. But one can hope.

          • Shelley Dagenais

            He insisted that only because in the future his boys would wonder why not.

          • Ricky

            That has to be the foulest, most vulgar comment I’ve ever seen on Royal Central. You’re entitled to your opinion, but that kind of language is highly offensive and quite inappropriate.

            You have no right to say such evil things about Queen Mary, and I hope your comments get deleted.

          • Cheryl Webb Clair

            Thanks Ricky. That’s the post I was looking for to reply to. Awful things to say. Anybody who has ever done any research knows that the reason Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon hesitated about marrying her Bertie was because she did NOT want to be in the royal fish bowl. And as for Queen Mary, what a lot of crap and nonsense that person had to say. I’m glad her comment was deleted. It was just awful. Disgraceful.

          • Ricky

            Cheryl, I’ve been reading and commenting on Royal Central for years, and I’ve seen lots of comments I disagreed with. As I said, everyone is entitled to their opinion. We all know there’s no shortage of those who feel qualified to judge people they’ve never met, and base their opinions on the most lurid tabloid reports. But they have that privilege in a democratic society.

            But when I saw that person’s remarks, I couldn’t believe my eyes. That one was so far over the top, that I wrote to the editor about it; only the second time I’ve ever felt the need to do that. I don’t believe in censoring opinions, but we don’t need comments that border on pornography on our site.

          • Cheryl Webb Clair

            It really was disgusting. I agree that people have a right to their opinions, but like you, I hate when they base their opinions on tabloid trash. I’m 67, almost 68 and I’ve been studying the royals since I was about 10. I’ve read all sorts of books by all sorts of people. There’s no one person to blame for the breakup of Charles and Diana’s marriage. None of them were without guilt of some kind. I don’t think Camilla sought out Charles, he turned to her when his marriage wasn’t working. It was a marriage that never stood a chance in the first place. But the vile things that person said about the Queen Mother and Queen Mary were just that, vile.

          • Joy Culver

            I really don’t think Camilla sought out Charles…..I don’t think their affair ever lapsed, she knew he had to marry a virgin and that he had to provide an heir or two, but he never even thought of finishing with Camilla ….they just carried on as they had since she offered herself to him. I believe the poor man really thought he could have them both…Do his duty to the country and the Monarchy and carry on with loving Camilla at the same time……..Who-ever is at fault I hope she doesn’t become Queen, She is a divorced woman and was the future king’s mistress.

          • Kathleen Ames

            I wonder how old you are – I mean that in a nice way – but you seem to be talking about such a different story that I wonder if you are actually old enough to know what went on and if you were there.

          • Joy Culver

            Hi Kathleen, I am 80 years old and spent my first 52 years in England, not far from London, All my life devoted to the Royal family, Love and admire the Queen and just loved Diana. I think my opinions are valid, have a happy day

          • Kathleen Ames

            Luckily, I did not see the comments but agree with what you have said. I am 75 and the Royals were a HUGE part of our lives, Every aspect of their lives was reported (not in the way they do now), and they were revered. There was much more than Charles’ ‘affair’ with Camilla here. There is also what drove him to resume the relationship – namely Diana!

          • Cheryl Webb Clair

            I agree BUT, she was very young and romantic. Being “in love” just is not enough. I’ve been there, done that. There has to be more basis to a marriage than just love. Common ground. Common interests. Neither of which these two had. It’s very sad, but life isn’t always fair.

          • Kathleen Ames

            I entirely agree with your comments. They made a mistake. You made a mistake but I hope your life has moved on successfully. You are right to say life isn’t always fair but at the same time life goes on. It is time some of these bitter and twisted people got on with their lives and let HRH Prince Charles and his wife get on happily with theirs.

          • Cheryl Webb Clair

            Yes, I remarried and have been happily married to my soul mate for more than 42 years. Second time around is much better. I think that’s what Charles and Camilla have and I applaud them. They are happy and fulfilled and will be wonderful on the throne.

          • Breezen3199@hotmail.com

            No your wrong part of divorse she wanted to keep her total even stated camillia could not be carrying total

          • Cheryl Webb Clair

            What total are you talking about? Total what?

          • Kathleen Ames

            What?

      • Erin Chalmers

        I agree absolutely. Are they just going to change the constitution every time the prospective King or Queen want to do things differently even though it is 2015. After all Charles will be head of the Church of England yes !! Divorce is recognised but for the Supreme Ruler of the Faith I think his / her record needs to be exemplitory. Camilla ought to be consort, same as Albert was for Queen Victoria. So then why is not Prince Philip. KING if he’s married to Queen Elizabeth. Surely you have to be direct lineage for King /Queen not just someone’s husband or wife.

        • Kathleen Ames

          You obviously don’t understand our Royalty at all. A King would be the senior and his partner is a Queen. When a Queen is the senior or ruler, her partner cannot hold a more important (higher) title. There are many speculations as to why Prince Phillip was not created Prince Consort but let’s face it, he is his own man in his own home and the most likely reason is that he chose not to accept that title. He is, after all, a prince in his own right.l

      • marie

        Should Charles as Head of the Church come under same rules as his uncle and abdicate….

        • Kathleen Ames

          Definitely not. Then we would be left with Wils and Catherine who, so far, show no interest in working for the Crown unless there is a game of sport there.

      • Kathleen Ames

        No Frank. The world has moved on since 1935 thank goodness and millions do divorce and remarry and more millions do not even bother to marry but live in what you presumably call ‘sin’.

    • Shelley Dagenais

      Totally wrong! When you involve yourself to destroy a Royal Christian Marriage between a Royal Prince and His Betrothed Princess to be, before it even begins, Infecting it with deceit and adultery, against your own Christian Husband, and your lovers fiancée, (Princess Diana), you should forfeit the right to ever be Queen.

    • audrey pard

      The Camilla whore will never be queen and hopefully HM The Queen will live longer than her dear mothers 101 years and we will be rid of the Camilla slut before long!

    • VikkiB

      She’s a divorcee, there has never been a divorcee as Queen, so no, that is not the way it has always been. Also, she married knowing that she would be HRH The Princess Consort. It should be kept that way.

      • Kathleen Ames

        No. But there have been Kings who were divorced, first and foremost Henry VIII. But he is not alone. Check your history. AND as I keep pointing out HRH is a widower, NOT a divorcee. We live in the 21st century women have equality thank God!

    • Anne Williams

      The Sheik of Harrods was paricularly brutal, a ‘pot calling the kettle black’ as he did’nt get his way. Camilla is a very kind woman and understanding woman to all and of wonderful support from all who know her. .Seemingly, an excellent help meet to the Prince as the Queen Mum was to King George 6th. Frankly, I do not care what title she has as long as its polite! Maybe she and Prince Charles do as well. ?In view of the worldwide vitriol towards Camilla , I hope they are tres diplomatique .

  • unbatedmedusa

    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 :)

    • Ricky

      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.

      • unbatedmedusa

        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!

        • Anni

          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.

    • Royal Central

      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!

      • Nick

        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!

      • Cynthia

        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.

        • Anni

          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.

          • Cynthia

            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”.

          • Kathy Gebhardt

            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….

          • Anni

            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!

          • Cynthia

            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.

          • Anni

            You must be a very unhappy person indeed.

          • Ricky

            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.

          • Kathy Gebhardt

            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.

          • Ricky

            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.

          • Anni

            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.

          • Cynthia

            Di could hold a grudge longer than anyone, and so can I.

          • Anni

            And I am truly sorry for you.

          • Mabel

            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….

          • Cynthia

            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.

          • nmfd72

            well said!

          • Anni

            I am seriously sorry for you. Hate corrodes the hater and doesn’t hurt the object of their hate one bit.

          • Anni

            I’ve decided you’re joking to provoke an interesting conversation. You could not actually feel this way.

          • Cynthia

            I really don’t like Camilla, and that is no joke.

      • Justine Mee

        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

      • unbatedmedusa

        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 ??????

        • Ricky

          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.

          • Cynthia

            I enjoy holding grudges. Saying mean things about Camilla makes me feel good, if nothing else.

        • Anni

          It didn’t even begin to play out that way.

    • Anni

      You may, of course, decide who to respect, but you have not say whatsoever in who will be your queen. Trust me on this.

      • Cynthia

        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.

        • Anni

          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.

          • Cynthia

            How can you have a democracy without politicians? Would you rather have an absolute monarchy?

          • twincitiestodd

            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.

          • Cynthia

            Well she said “our politics suck” and lamented the frequency of elections.. Sounds like she wants a lack of politicians and democracy to me.

    • kkeri12

      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.’

  • Blueeyesofelvis Gett

    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.

    • Ricky

      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.

      • Zachary Davis

        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.

        • Ricky

          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.

          • Zachary Davis

            Okay. Thanks for the info.

    • Christopher-trier

      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.

    • Sam Salzman

      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.

      • micmac

        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.

    • micmac

      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.

      • Ricky

        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.

  • Cynthia

    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..

    • Rachel Oxley

      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.

      • Cynthia

        I want to be Prince Charles’s mistress. I can love him better than Camilla can.

        • Anni

          Having us on. Following the whole conversation shouts that you are having a giggle here.

          • Cynthia

            No. I really want to be Prince Charles’s mistress. I think he’s cute and I want to hurt Camilla.

          • twincitiestodd

            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.

          • Cynthia

            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!!!

  • roger

    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

    • micmac

      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.

  • DaveUWSNYC

    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).

    • Lena

      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.

      • kkeri12

        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.

        • Ozark Granny

          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.

          • Emac

            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

          • kkeri12

            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.

          • Cheryl Webb Clair

            Thank you, kkeri12, for explaining that to Ozark Granny. Do be patient with the old dear, she is, after all, from the Ozarks which equals hillbilly. She needs to go back to her porch with her quilt and corn cob pipe and stop trying to be continental.

          • Cheryl Webb Clair

            I know that was not very respectful, but honestly, she just doesn’t seem to grasp how British Monarchy works. I’m no expert and I will admit that, but it isn’t rocket science to understand that a reigning Queen, one who reigns in her own right, could not be married to a King. That title would indeed put him above her and that can’t be.

          • Ricky

            Ozark Granny;

            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.

          • VikkiB

            Yes, but when I last looked, the Queen is NOT a man Philip IS NOT a woman!!! THe wife of every English/British King has invariably been a Queen (not that I necessarily think that Camilla should be), but the husband of a blood line Queen is not a king. Your argument is completely flawed, so calling someone else ‘full of crap’ is asinine.

          • Michele Keighley

            I suggest you take some time to actually read the article above before commenting on something that you obviously know little about. The reason why Queen Anne’s, Queen Victoria’s and the present Queen’s husband were/are referred to as ‘Princes’ not Kings, has been spelled out so many times it is amazing that someone who feels qualified to comment on this site seems utterly unaware of them.

        • Shelley Dagenais

          She is a divorcee and does not deserve the right to be queen. hence the procedure to make sure the future queen is a virgin well Camilla had her brood with another man as she had an affair with Charles.

          • Cheryl Webb Clair

            And her children are therefore not in the line of succession. You really need to do some boning up on monarchies and such. Seems like you don’t know very much at all.

        • Kathleen Ames

          Forgive me Keri but you obviously don’t understand the position. The title of a King’s wife is ‘Queen’ not Queen Consort. Camilla should, and will be, Queen even if they decide not to use that title. Just as she is now Princess of Wales as wife of The Prince of Wales. They simply don’t currently use that title out of respect for the late Princess Diana but it does not alter the fact that Camilla is Princess of Wales just as she WILL be Queen whatever ‘they’ decide to call her!

      • Emily

        The Royal Family doesn’t work for a living?? How many other 89 year old women and 94 year old men work the hours Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip work? HRH Princess Anne complete about 3 functions a day. The Cambridges are under constant scrutiny and TRH Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall are constantly representing the Monarchy. Do I need to mention Prince Harry? How many tourist pounds would you lose if you abolished the Monarchy. You MUST know this is your primary source of revenue.

        • audrey pard

          The Royal family needed the fine Spencer bloodline with more true Royal English bloodlines than the Windsor’s. Sadly, the Windsor bloodline was somewhat polluted with such dreadfully poor genes historically found in the Windsor family (this was made considerably
          worse by the Queen Mother who had FIVE cousins detained for their lifetimes in mental institutions each certified as a retarded imbecile (inbreeding!). Disturbingly, Prince Philips psychotic deranged mother was also committed to a mental institution, she died after decades of incarceration being permitted to spend her last two years locked in a secure room at Buckingham Palace. Camilla was totally, totally unsuitable due to being an impure whore (apparently riddled with numerous STD’s having been a prostitute since a girl) together
          with her worthless maternal family of whores having documented congenital syphilis! Furthermore, The Queen and Prince Philip are cousin’s too so perhaps it’s understandable that Charles is mentally challenged and inbred – wanting to be his whores TAMPAX and talking to plants! Frankly Charles should have been aborted soon he will hopefully be blown up together with his whore by terrorists!

    • Zachary Davis

      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.

      • Shelley Dagenais

        The rules change rapidly to suit the ones on the throne.

    • Kathleen Ames

      But at that time our Monarchy also lost it’s power. So let’s not go there!

    • Kathleen Ames

      Let’s not go there. Charles II also lost all the power the royalty had!

  • Karen Carlson

    Camilla should only be the consort of Charles should he be made King.I would prefer he be passed over for William to succeed.

    • Christopher-trier

      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.

    • Ricky

      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!

    • micmac

      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.

    • Gail

      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!!

    • Elizabeth Walker

      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

  • Baron Antonio Massimo Massa

    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.

    • Daniel Crowley

      Uh, the Anglican church only exists to celebrate divorce.

      • mark

        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.

        • Ricky

          Prince Charles married Camilla in a civil ceremony at Windsor Guildhall. A ceremony of blessing followed at St. George’s Chapel in Windsor Castle.

        • Jan Wheeler Lachowycz

          I think his legal marriage actually took place in Windsor’s town hall. A blessing took place at the chapel at Windsor Castle.

      • Connie Stannard Lewis

        it was Started by Henry v111 so he could get a divorce !

        • Anni

          There were actually a few more good reasons.

          • Anni

            And, they were annulments, not divorces.

          • Beedeekay

            So killing the present wife to enable him to marry another is now called “Annulments”?

          • Mark Webber

            Not at all. Catherine of Aragon had previously been married to his brother, Arthur. Henry sought to have the marriage annulled on the grounds that a marriage to the widow of one’s brother was not legitimate. He was not seeking a divorce, which would have been the termination of a marriage legitimately contracted. The Pope was largely motivated, in refusing Henry’s request, by political considerations. The King of Spain, Catherine’s brother, was an ally of his and not someone to be offended by an insult to his sister. Henry did not kill Catherine. She lived out her natural life in England.

          • Glenys Hutchinson

            He was actually divorces when Diana died so he could have married anyway.

          • Beedeekay

            Quite so, but he would have considered his young sons feelings before doing that. Shame he didn’t consider his wife, Diana when he was carrying on his dalliance with another woman, a married one at that.

          • Kathleen Warner

            Henry VIII divorced Catherine of Aragon himself because the Pope would not grant him an Annulment, so he broke with the Roman Catholic
            Church and made himself head of The English Catholic Church so he could give hlmself a divorce. Henry VIII lived and died a Catholic, just not a Roman Catholic.

          • Beedeekay

            What were they Anni ?

        • Beedeekay

          Yessss!

    • Mikael

      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.

      • Ricky

        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.

        • Royal Central

          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.

          • Ricky

            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?

          • Royal Central

            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.

          • Ricky

            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?

          • Royal Central

            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.

  • Jabez

    Absolutely silly and pointless issue to discuss. Get rid of the lot of them!

    • markmarkgable101@hmail.com

      Republicans are so miserable. That’s why they have no support.

      They’re like “a candle in the wind”.

      Useless..!!!!

  • Thomas Patrick Allen

    Absolutely. Long live the future King! Long live the future Queen!

    • Ted Duggan

      And WHY ?

  • Kathy Gebhardt

    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”

    • Anni

      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.

      • Kathy Gebhardt

        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…

        • Anni

          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.

        • markmarkgable101@hmail.com

          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.

      • Cynthia

        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.

        • Anni

          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.

    • Anni

      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

      • D Lee Jens-Wessler

        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.

        • Anni

          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.

          • Cynthia

            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?

  • Judith

    I’m easy but Prince Philip has never been seen as ‘King.’ Let Camilla be King’s consort.

    • Ricky

      That’s exactly what will happen when the Prince of Wales becomes King Charles III.

      • Anni

        Gonna be George VII

        • Cynthia

          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.

          • Anni

            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.

          • Cynthia

            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.

          • Anni

            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.

          • Anni

            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.

          • Anni

            Victoria’s name was Alexandrina Victoria, Edward VII’s name was Albert Edward. It is not unknown.

          • Cynthia

            So what? It is still the exception, not the rule.

        • Ricky

          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.

          • Anni

            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.

    • kkeri12

      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.

      • Cynthia

        A sexist tradition that dates back to when a wife was little more than her husband’s property.

        • kkeri12

          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!

  • Anna

    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

    • Anni

      Disappointment, fine. Name calling and the like–nothing at all good can come of these.

      • Cynthia

        I don’t know. Name calling makes me laugh which makes me feel good.

  • Michael Steven Chavez

    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.

    • Ted Duggan

      Diana is dead because she fucked another guy ….PRICK ….The Royals killed her … Go get yourself a life

    • Ozark Granny

      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.)

      • Cheryl Webb Clair

        Any fool can see that they truly love each other and are very happy. Prince Charles is so much more relaxed and happy. If you don’t see that, it is because you don’t WANT to see it. You still think the world revolves around Diana. She’s gone, get over it.

  • Lilly

    Preach! Bless you! This is an amazing article!!

  • Keith

    I completely agree. The monarchy is a continuous succession. The wife of a King is a Queen, not a Princess.

  • Susie-Q

    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!

    • Anni

      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.

      • Ricky

        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.

        • Anni

          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?

        • Debbie

          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.

          • Royal Central

            She is Princess of Wales and will be Queen automatically when Prince Charles becomes king.

          • Ricky

            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.

          • Michele Keighley

            Unfortunately, I have to disagree. In fact, constitutionally and legally The Duchess of Cornwall is entitled to be called the Princess of Wales; and when Charles ascends the throne she will be legally and constitutionally entitled to be named as Queen, as she should.

          • Cassandra Helen Harding

            Sadly she legally is .. but Because the title Princess of Wales
            became strongly associated with the previous holder of that title,
            Diana, Camilla has adopted the feminine form of her husband’s
            highest-ranking subsidiary title, Duke of Cornwall
            although legally she is Princess of Wales. Unless any specific Act of
            Parliament is passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom (and other
            Commonwealth states) to the contrary, if Prince Charles becomes king,
            she will legally become Queen. However, on the occasion of their wedding in 2005, Clarence House
            stated that if Charles becomes king, it is intended that Camilla will
            adopt the unprecedented style of Princess Consort. The title is similar to the style of Prince Albert. This is not the same usage as her father-in-law, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, who does not hold the title of Prince Consort although he was created a Prince of the United Kingdom by his wife, Queen Elizabeth II.

        • Kathleen Ames

          Prince Phillip does not hold the title of Prince Consort. His title is The Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, etc., etc The title Prince Consort would be bestowed on him by HM The Queen. For reasons never disclosed this has not been done. One suggestion is that he chose not to accept suc title.

    • Cynthia

      I can make him happier.

    • Ozark Granny

      You’re talking from outside of their residence … many of their staff has said this is NOT true.

  • Anni

    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.

    • Ricky

      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.

      • Anni

        I seriously hope it can get a bit more civil. I do love the site.

        • Ozark Granny

          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.

    • Ozark Granny

      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.

      • Lisa O’Halloran

        Camilla will hardly be accepted internationally…..she created her own drama

        • Paul – English Riviera

          Correct. Causing yet more troublesome time for the Monarchy if she ever became Queen.

        • Michele Keighley

          Actually she is much admired internationally. It appears it’s only the Diana fans who consider her beyond the pale. However, Diana was not in any way perfect, and even if the divorce had not gone through how many of you would now be supporting the accession of a Queen whose adultery brought the paternity of her second son into question? Because if you would, and if that’s your standards then you don’t really have much to charge Camilla with.

          • Cassandra Helen Harding

            Your IGNORANCE is Highly Commendable !! Keep on with your IGNORANT Babble and delirium and PLEASE don’t Breed !!

        • Kathleen Ames

          Rubbish. Her strength, support and popularity are welcomed everywhere except by bigots who are living in the past.

      • margaret rose robertson

        judge not for you will be judge,or you who are without sin cast the first stone,the only perfect male was crucified.

    • Anthony Worthington

      My, my, my, not everyone knows as much as you seem to know!

  • Ted Duggan

    Face of a Cow and married to a Dick

  • Ted Duggan

    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

  • Carole Janish Wilson

    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??

  • roger

    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

    • Ricky

      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.

      • Anni

        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.

        • Ricky

          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!

        • kevin

          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.

          • Anni

            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.

          • kevin

            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.

          • Cheryl Webb Clair

            Really? I could have sworn Princess Elizabeth was in love with Prince Philip when she married him. Even though her parents didn’t entirely approve of him. Others at court didn’t either. You are correct that he bullied Charles into marrying Diana.

          • Ricky

            The case(s) of Henry VIII comes to mind.

          • Cheryl Webb Clair

            Henry VIII certainly did. Anne Bolyne was already pregnant with Elizabeth I when they married. And Katherine of Aragon was still alive at the time.

      • Anni

        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.

    • Anni

      Makes Her Majesty certainly too old, doesn’t that!

  • Justine Mee

    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.

  • Caroline 1953

    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.

    • Anni

      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.

      • Greg

        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.

        • Anni

          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.

  • Marie

    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.

    • Anni

      Yes! Rational and Loving. Both things in somewhat short supply too often. Living in the past, holding grudges, these things are sad.

  • Jennifer Clark

    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?

    • Anni

      Very well said!

      • Jennifer Clark

        Thank you.

        • Anni

          Thank you. Some sanity and clearly presented thoughts added to this conversation.

  • Connie Stannard Lewis

    my biggest annoyance is that Charles was ab le to get away with Spouse abuse!

    • Anni

      Of what do you speak?

      • Connie Stannard Lewis

        the verbal and mental abuse!

        • Anni

          My understanding is she gave back as good as she got.

          • Anni

            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.

          • Cynthia

            How do you know this? Were you there? Does bashing Diana make YOU feel good?

          • twincitiestodd

            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.

          • Cynthia

            Naive to believe her husband would be faithful to her and volatile when he wasn’t? Totally understandable.

          • Cynthia

            How do you know Diana “naive” or “volatile” anyway? Sounds like bashing to me.

          • Cynthia

            Here is a clue. No Camilla then no tantrums screaming or shouting. Simple. How do you know she did this anyway?

  • Kevin

    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.

    • Jennifer Clark

      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.

      • Cynthia

        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.

        • Jennifer Clark

          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.

  • JJ Jones

    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

  • roger

    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

  • nmfd72

    I agree with your assessment

  • Karim Sadrudin Juma

    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.

  • Blue

    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

    • Ricky

      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.

  • Luca

    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

  • Lisa O’Halloran

    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 ……

    • twincitiestodd

      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.

      • Cynthia

        I WILL NEVER GROW UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Liz Cousins

    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

    • Royal Central

      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.

      • Cynthia

        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.

  • Christine

    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!!

  • Jessa Fletcher

    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.

    • Ricky

      It was never said that it had been absolutely decided, only that it was the intention at that time.

    • twincitiestodd

      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.

    • Ricky

      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.

  • De

    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.

  • Maddy

    I don’t think would be right

  • vikki king

    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

    • Ricky

      When and where was the rule made that a divorced woman cannot become Queen?

  • Lis

    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.

  • Ozark Granny

    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.

  • Interested

    Why Is Prince Philip Not King Philip?

  • Sue

    I do not want to have Queen Camilla and I still want prince William and Princess Katie

    • Royal Central

      It’s a Monarchy.

    • Ricky

      Be patient; William’s time will come in due course.

  • karla2489

    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.

  • ssnana

    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!

    • Ricky

      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.

  • Bluenose

    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.

    • Cheryl Webb Clair

      So you are perfect then are you? How nice for you. Must be wonderful to be perfect.

    • Kathleen Ames

      What a sad person. You seem to be living in the Dark Ages. This is the 21st Century. Some people marry and divorce, many – in case you haven’t noticed – don’t even bother to get married. Do you condemn them all?

  • Haley Parlin

    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.

  • Jan

    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.

    • Cynthia

      Supposedly the “Church of England” had “relaxed its rules” in recent years. Unfair I know.

  • Cindy Kacsmar Khalid

    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 !!

  • hannah

    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!

    • Ricky

      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?

      • hannah

        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!!!!!!

        • twincitiestodd

          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?

          • Cynthia

            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”. 😉

  • Picca

    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.

  • Terrell Phillips

    Nooooooo way is she gonna be queen move over Charles let William and Kate be our next king and Queen.

  • Elisabeth De

    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 !!!

  • srilankan

    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.

  • Nancy Bosomworth

    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

  • Lynda Andrews

    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.

  • ImMantha

    NOOOOOoooooOOOOoooOOOOO NEVER!

  • Cursing the throne

    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!

  • twincitiestodd

    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.

  • twincitiestodd

    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.

    • Ricky

      If Charles dies after his accession, she would be known as Her Majesty Queen Camilla.

      • Royal Central

        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.

  • John Richard O’Sullivan

    Really have problems with this. I however, accept that precedent takes FULL authority. I personally would be conflicted should Charles ever accede to the throne as by rights his wife should become Queen. I do think it a touch hypocritical… when the former King Edward VIII married Wallis Simpson King George VI denied her a title which was hers by right. Given this the precedent has already taken place. I dont deny that Camilla has NEVER stepped a foot out of place and she does seem determined to atone for her previous actions. Personally I do not believe that Charles will outlive our current Queen and that the next Monarch will be King William V? and Catherine.

    • Kathleen Ames

      You are incorrect. Wallis was, by right, The Duchess of Windsor, as the wife of the Duke of Windsor. What the Duke wanted for her and what she did not get – because it is a gift of the Monarch (George VI) – was the prefix Her Royal Highness (HRH).

  • Ronan Silveira Wittee

    – God Save The Queen Camila ! .’. is just and perfect .’.

  • Anthony Worthington

    Question: If Prince Charles happened to pass on would Camilla take over the throne and who would be next in line to the throne? What would happen to Prince Williams chances of becoming king?

    • Ricky

      If Prince Charles was to die before becoming King, Prince William would take his father’s place in the succession. The Queen would almost certainly bestow the title Prince of Wales onto William, but this is not automatic.

      The succession would not change, and in due course, Prince George would follow his father as King George VII.

      • Kathleen Ames

        I think you are muddled here. When Prince Charles becomes King, William is almost certain to be created Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall. He IS the eldest son. If Charles died, they wil be irreovant to William and both titles would in theory pass to Prince George though Prince of Wales is not normally given until a boy ‘comes of age’.
        Dowager is not an automatic title and is at the discretion of the giver and the receiver and normally given only to the very elderly royal. The late Queen Mother hated the title and refused to be so know hence “Queen Mum”

        • Ricky

          I was speaking of a scenario where if Prince Charles was to die while the Queen was still living. Yes, she would almost certainly create William Prince of Wales. But he couldn’t have the title Duke of Cornwall if Charles was dead, since that is only bestowed on the son of the monarch.

          There wouldn’t be another Duke of Cornwall until Prince William is King, then it would automatically go to Prince George.

          The title Prince of Wales may be bestowed at any time of the monarch’s choosing. Prince Charles was given that title around 1957, but the investiture didn’t take place until he came of age in 1969.

          • Kathleen Ames

            That’s what I’ve said. Those two titles would pass to William on Charles’ accession or to George if William became King unexpectedly. In the latter event, however, it is unlikely they would be bestowed on a small child.

          • Ricky

            Almost. The Duke of Cornwall title is automatic, but Prince of Wales must be bestowed.

          • Kathleen Ames

            I am aware of all that Ricky and have already said it. I have lived through and followed it all. Prince Charles was not born Duke of Cornwall and the title is not bestowed. He became Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay automatically on the Queen’s accession, and the same will happen to Prince William on his father’s accession. The title Prince of Wales is in the Monarch’s gift and is normally bestowed on the eldest son when the child is old enough to understand the honour. William is already an adult, and is likely to receive this honour fairly soon after his father’s accession. If Charles was to die before becoming King the titles Dukes of Cornwall and Rothesay would automaticall pass to Prince George but not the title Prince of Wales. You are simply repeating what I have already written and I am not sure why we appear to be arguing here.

  • Mary Pauline Frendo

    all i can say when prince charles will eventually become king, the people will not respect him as musch as they respect william and queen elizabeth II. Camilla can never become queen, although now she is a widowed woman and not a divorcee. It is a dishonour to have a queen of that kind after all that drama, and after all even prince charles does nto deserve the title!!they created a hell of a scandal in the royal family!!

  • Aivis Svirskis

    The author of the article is right to some extent, however it is not about Camilla and the public service she has done to the Crown and people and continues to do as the spouse of Prince Charles. It is about the monarchy and there can be only one king or queen who suceeds to the Crown and it is HRH Prince Charles.

  • Debra

    I’m a little confused I guess because Queens husband Prince Philip never became king and I know of other royal husbands are known as Prince consort why does it change with the Duchess after Prince of Wales becomes king after him is Prince William will be king and then England will have a Queen why change this. Other Royal husbands are proud to stand by there Queen. Sorry if I upset anyone with my statement but I was just sharing

  • trudy

    Here here I Agree!

  • Beedeekay

    I say stick with tradition. This woman becoming Queen would be flying in the face of what has been a beloved institution , and the rules should be adhered to. I would not like her to take on the Mantle of Queen, and being married to Prince Charles (who would be defender of the Faith) doesn’t mean she can step into the shoes of Queen Elizabeth or any other person who has sat on the Throne throughout the Centuries.

    • Ricky

      It’s traditional in the UK that the wife of a King takes the title of Queen Consort. According to the rules of succession the next monarchs will be King Charles III and Queen Camilla.

      In due course, it will be the Prince of Wales who will inherit the throne; not his wife.

      • Kathleen Ames

        Title is Queen not Queen Consort.

  • Beedeekay

    Oh! Before you say she wouldn’t be stepping in anyone’s shoes, I believe you know what I mean. And Charles could never fil HM’s shoes!

  • Bill

    I see no problem with Camilla eventually becoming Queen. These people who seem to wish to condem her, should perhaps in all honesty look at their own lives. Are we perhaps saying that the ladies who dislike Camilla, if they have been involved in divorces, that they should not be able to take the family name of their new husbands if it was thought they were the cause of their new husband’s divorce. What is in the past is in the past and should stay there. Camilla obviously makes prince Charles happy, she has a good relationship with Prince William and prince Harry, so therefore what business of ours to interfere. Good luck to Prince Charles and his wife, Camilla.

  • Kathleen Warner

    What about her ability to take the Coronation Oath as Defender of the Faith? Please excuse any ignorance on my part as I’m not British but have been a life long Anglophile. If this would be part of her oath than she can’t make it because she has a living ex-husband and the Church of England does not recognize divorce. If she can’t take the Coronation Oath she can’t be Queen. She was not made Princess of Wales when she married Prince Charles, which i don’t believe has happened before and I don’t think it would be horrible if she was the Princess Consort. If she can’t take the Coronation oath I don’t see how she could be anything else.

    • Ricky

      It will be King Charles III who will take the coronation oath that will make him Defender of the Faith. The monarch has that designation, not the consort.

      Camilla has chosen not to use the title Princess of Wales because of it’s association with Diana. But from a legal standpoint, as the Prince of Wales’ wife, legally Camilla is now the rightful holder of that title. She chose to use one of the several other titles (Duchess of Cornwall) she acquired when she married Prince Charles.

      Diana was also Duchess of Cornwall whilst married to Prince Charles, in addition to a number of other titles. Camilla is also known as Duchess of Rothesay in Scotland, as was Diana before her divorce.

      • normaduncan42@sky.com

        Camellia should never become queen it was her who came between Charles and Diana if he didn’t love her why marry her to then break her heart we know he needed an heir why didn’t he marry his mistress years ago if it was good enough for the Duke of Windsor to a a a late for the woman he loved there should still be the same for prince Charles and let William become king he’s in touch with the public not talking to plants that’s my opinion

        • Ricky

          And it’s a very childish, emotional, and disjointed opinion you have expressed. Perhaps English isn’t your first language, or maybe you only have a sketchy understanding about this issue.

          The case of King Edward VIII was an entirely different situation, and that was almost 80 years ago. The laws regarding the succession are being observed by everyone concerned, and are not subject to such silly objections coming from people with an imagined superiority to others.

    • Kathleen Ames

      I’m sorry but you are wrong. Camilla is the Princess of Wales automatically as the wife of the Prince of Wales. It is not being used currently out of respect to Diana’s memory.

  • Paul – English Riviera

    Charle’s must never become King. He must realise the damage he has done to the British Monarchy. He should pass this to William. We need a young bright futuristic King for this County. Not the Chief Member of the Royal Laughing At Stock, called Charles.

    One can but hope that Queen Elizabeth out lives Charles.
    A truly wonderful ending to a crisis of having unworthy King and his Tart on the Throne.

    • Kathleen Ames

      You mean, I presume, the young bright young man who, along with his young bright wife, who are not interested in carrying out any Royal duties and apprenticeship as future king, unless it involves some sort of sports event?

  • Frank Deese

    As a US citizen, perhaps my opinion is irrelevant to some degree. I shall always prefer Diana. Even as much as I like The Prince of Wales, much of the blame must be upon his shoulders. He ought to have married Camilla in the first place. They are so compatible. Your point about monarchy is totally on point; she MUST become Queen. Even a die-hard DIana fan like me, must realise this. Diana has irreversibly left her mark on the entire institution of the British monarchy. It already shows. And it will be more evident under King William.

  • Frank Graham

    I agree with Ricky; an excellent article. And I agree that Camilla should be crowned Queen alongside her husband.

  • karen

    I have to say I’m neither a lover or hater of the royal family. If anything, perhaps rather indifferent most of the time. However, if we are going to have one anyway, we may as well treat them with a little respect. Camilla has indeed worked hard with good grace over the years and the family have obviously accepted her, so who are we to say any different? Also, I would just like to point out the little matter of British monarchs. At least Camilla is British.

  • Renes Mee

    I agree with you I am british but we don@t like this ugly women and noway that she would or should be queen we got our Queen and our Queen of Heart we don@t need this bitch to be one

    • Shelley Dagenais

      Agreed!

  • Anthony Worthington

    I personally do not think it has anything to do with Camilla or Diana, the only thing I have against this scenario is the divorce issue. I personally do not think Charles should be king, it should be William. Being that as it may if Charles were to be the next king then his wife should be queen.

    • Ricky

      There has been a divorced King of England before, so there’s no conflict on that issue.

      • Anthony Worthington

        Then there is nothing holding his crowning back, and when he becomes king she is his queen, even though I feel he is not going to make a good king; only time will tell.

        • Ricky

          Toward the end of Queen Victoria’s reign, many people expected a disaster when the then-Prince of Wales would inherit the throne. Prince Albert Edward had a well known reputation for heavy drinking, overeating, and was famous for his trips to casinos and his mistresses.

          But King Edward VII surprised them all, and turned out to be a fine King. He was exactly what his country needed at the time, and proved himself to be an able statesman.

          He endeared himself to the French when he signed an alliance as “Edouard,” and there were other successes as well.

          I think history could likely repeat itself when Charles becomes King. Let’s wait and see.

    • Kathleen Ames

      William cannot become king unless Prince Charles dies or abdicates. In any case, unless he, William, gets his act together and starts learning how to be king instead of only attending s porting events, he will never be ready to take over. He is not going to get the long apprenticeship his father has had.

      • Anthony Worthington

        Thank you Kathleen. I really do not see Prince Charles abdicating. He has waited for so long, so we might as well see how he handles the throne. He will never be any where near as good as our present Queen, for that matter I do not foresee anyone being as good as she has been during her reign.

        • Kathleen Ames

          With respect you cannot possibly know that. Charles is a dutiful as his mother and a total believer in their roles, He may be more outspoken than HM, because he is a different generation but that does not make him bad, far from it. I believe he will be a great King.

          • Anthony Worthington

            Time will tell !

  • Toby Old

    “The issue of whether the Duchess of Cornwall could be given the title of “Queen” when Prince Charles ascends to the throne doesn’t just turn on whether the public would accept the idea. There’s also the thorny question of whether she and Charles are legally married.

    Charles and Camilla were married in a register office at the Windsor Guildhall on April 9, 2005, but it’s far from clear that that marriage was lawful. Civil marriages were introduced in England by the Marriage Act of 1836 but in section 45 it says that the Act “shall not extend to the marriage of any of the Royal Family”. This was a factor in Princess Margaret’s decision not to marry Group Captain Peter Townsend in 1955. Because Townsend was divorced, a church wedding was out of the question and a civil ceremony was their only option. The view of the then Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, was that Parliament would only regard such a marriage as lawful if the Princess renounced her right of succession. It subsequently came to light that Churchill was acting on the advice of Lord Kilmuir, then Lord Chancellor, who took the view that clause 45 of the 1836 Marriage Act forbade a civil marriage between Townend and the second-in-line to the throne.

    A second Marriage Act was passed in 1949 and that contained a similar exclusion clause: “Nothing in this Act shall affect any law or custom relating to the marriage of members of the Royal Family.” On the face of it, that is pretty clear cut: the prohibition on members of the Royal Family getting married in civil ceremonies remained.

    That was certainly the view of John Major’s government. This was clear from a government briefing document circa 1996 that was uncovered byThe Times under a Freedom of Information request. “Members of the Royal Family are excepted from the provisions of the Marriage Act of 1949, and their marriages in England and Wales must therefore be performed by Anglican clergy under either a Special or Common Licence,” it stated.

    This was also the view of Lord Lyell of Mary-yate, the Attorney-General at the time of Charles’s and Diana’s divorce. He raised doubts about the lawfulness of a civil marriage between Charles and Camilla in February, 2005 when they first announced their intention to marry. That in turn prompted Charlie Falconer, then Lord Chancellor, to issue a formal statement saying that in his opinion such a marriage would be legal. The key passage read as follows:

    We are aware that different views have been taken in the past; but we consider that these were overcautious, and we are clear that the interpretation I have set out in this statement is correct. We also note that the Human Rights Act has since 2000 required legislation to be interpreted wherever possible in a way that is compatible with the right to marry (article 12) and with the right to enjoy that right without discrimination (article 14). This, in our view, puts the modern meaning of the 1949 Act beyond doubt.

    You can read Falconer’s statement in full here. At the time, this view was vigorously contested by experts in family law and was widely regarded as an attempt to circumnavigate the law that was typical of Tony Blair’s government.

    Obviously, the question of whether Charles and Camilla are legally married has a direct bearing on the issue of whether she’s entitled to call herself “Queen” once Charles has become King. The problem for Charles is that the matter is far from open-and-shut which means any attempt to confer that title on Camilla would generate a firestorm of controversy. Could the Royal couple brazen it out? If I was Charles, I wouldn’t take the risk.” – Toby Young, The Telegraph, November 20th, 2010

    • Kathleen Ames

      This is all very debateable and complicated but to all intent and purpose they are married. However, should it turn out that the legal eagles decided they are not, it would not prevent Charles from making Camilla his consort

  • Kim

    She should not be queen at all. It is not deserved. She was previously married. Just like Charles should not be king since he was divorced.

    William and Kate should be king and queen. Sorry but I am just speaking the truth since I am related to the royal family through king Edward ….

  • Thomas H Craggs

    If William and Harry accept that see should be Queen who are we to deny her the right, but i like to see the matter put to rest before the passing of the Queen.

    • Ricky

      The matter is already decided because the laws regarding the succession are quite clear. The next monarchs of the UK will be King Charles III and Queen Camilla.

      I agree that it’s a good thing that William and Harry seem to like Camilla, but that has no effect on this.

      The only way anything different would happen is if Charles himself decides to give Camilla a different title, or if he died before becoming King.

      • Kathleen Ames

        If. God Forbid -Charles died before he was crowned King, the situation would not arise. Camilla is not Queen in her own right and would therefore step aside (as did the late Queen Mum) for the wife of the next king.

        • Ricky

          In that situation, there would be nothing for Camilla to step aside from. She would be the Dowager Duchess of Cornwall; simple as that.

        • Kathleen Ames

          I beg to differ. The wife of a King does step aside. True there is no formal procdure but it still has to happen even though that person no longer has rights so to speak. The late Queen Mum on being widowed was very reluctant to step aside. It took HM The Queen about two years to persuade the Queen mum to move out of Buckingham Palace as she did not want to give up her ‘starring’ role. Nor would Camilla automatically take the title you’ve allocated. That is decided jointly by the new Monarch and the person in question. Dowager is highly unlikely to be used in this day and age. As I’ve said earlier the Queen Mother refused to be so called. Also, if Camilla does become Queen and is widowed she would be entitled have a title of Princess which is higher than Duchess just as she does now.

  • dc3gal

    Bottom line is, for the most part you can’t help who you fall in love with. Who knows why Camilla and Charles didn’t marry to begin with but I don’t believe it was unrequited love. Just the opposite really. It was a strong love that has endured much and continues.

    I was as much a fan of Diana as anyone else and when she died my ex husband couldn’t tell me about it because he knew I would fall apart just as the rest of the world did. He only said there was something I needed to see and he put the newspaper down in front of me.

    Both Diana and Charles had their affairs. Doesn’t make it right, just a fact. No one in this life is perfect. Charles and Camilla couldn’t stay away from each other which says so much about their love for each other which leads me to believe that the fact they did not marry in the first place was not their choice. I don’t know that for a fact though. Diana was looking for something that wasn’t there for her till the end sadly. No one person was at fault for all this; not Diana, not Charles, not Camilla, but maybe all three in their own ways. But some people need to nail someone to the cross and Camilla was that person.

    Camilla has put up with a lot in the name of love which speaks volumes of her strength. She is willing to live in a fish bowl and take the insults from the self righteous. I would venture to say those who are bullying her, because that is what it is, don’t know her at all.

    Everyone says that royalty can have their choice of mates but never stop to think of the other side of this. To be willing to live in that forever fish bowl and have insults hurled at them by those who don’t know what they are talking about, is not a future most would want. People also say the royals pick that life but no they don’t. They are born into it and have nothing to say about it, hence, neither do those they choose for mates.

    • Kathleen Ames

      Well said

  • Sherry

    I am in total agreement. Camilla must be
    Queen. She has married the future King
    and if for no other reason it is her right
    But if I must list she has been exemplary
    in her dutie. She has forged a relationship with the Queen and all of Charles family especially his sons.
    Why is it that so many of the people who are opposed to Camilla would welcome
    Fergie back into the royal fold in a heartbeat. At least Diana didn’t flaunt her
    relationships with other men while still
    married to Charles. Fergie did and was
    disgusting. Also tried to shakedown her former husband for money by introducing him to unsavory people. Which by the way Andrew did not need help with that as he befriended one of the sleaziest pimps in the U.S. So time to move on and accept the Duchess for the wonderful woman that she is

  • Carol Carey-Lee

    I believe if you are married to the King that makes you his, and by extension the people’s, Queen. Makes sense to this low born American anyway.

  • Gary

    I may think she should be Queen when Charles becomes King but I also believe in the long standing tradition that as Charles was divorced from Princess Diana at the time of her death does not make him in the legal sense a Widower and as Camilla was also divorced and a Catholic and although converted her Religion she still should not be Queen although Queen Consort would be more correct and should something happen to Prince Charles when he is King that his son Prince William would then in succession become King and reign as King over the British Realm.
    This being said it is not the intent to show disrespect to Camilla but merely to stand on Tradition

    • Ricky

      As the wife of a King, Queen Consort is exactly what Camilla’s title will be when the Prince of Wales inherits the throne.

    • Kathleen Ames

      Whether you like it or not Prince Charles was and is legally a widower – his first wife died – Diana is dead. What proof do you need?

  • Elizabeth Glazier

    Camilla will certainly be Queen in my opinion. I concern, that all that Princess consort baloney was to appease the Diana mob at the time

  • edith

    that low life should never become anything except a klow life slave . she is ! to ugly to be a queen ….2 drinks to much …..3 she is divorce and they should not allow that. WILLIAM all the way

  • Glenys Hutchinson

    Totally agree. Those who have met her say what a wonderful woman she is. I wish I could meet her as she seems to be a genuine person.

  • Glenys Hutchinson

    Diana was well aware of what the monarchy was about, more so than Camilla. After all, Diana’s father was equerry to the Queen. Diana wasn’t so pure when it comes to the sanctity of marriage either.

    • Kathleen Warner

      Diana was 19 and a virgin and Charles made her believe he loved her. He would have married Camilla if he could but the Queen did not consider her suitable.

      • Isc Multiimedia

        how do you know she was a virgin?

        • audrey pard

          It’s a matter of recorded fact Her Majesty’s gynaecologist
          Sir George Pinker medically examined the Princess of Wales and formally confirmed she was a virgin prior to the Royal marriage!
          Sir George Pinker was surgeon-gynaecologist from 1973 until
          1990 and attended nine royal births; in 1982 he delivered William and two years later his brother Harry.

        • Dianne Hester Spell

          Days before DNA. She was check and guarded to insure her child would be a true Royal.

          • Ricky

            That’s not so. Both Diana and Sarah Ferguson have repeatedly denied that they were ever subjected to any kind of virginity tests.

            They may have been examined for the ability to bear children, but that business about verifying their virginity isn’t true.

          • Anne Williams

            Thanks Ricky,
            One wonders exactly HOW one TESTS for virginity??? Please research .. My mother was deemed a virgin by her Obstetrician during her 1st pregnancy!! It is possible believe me.

          • Isc Multiimedia

            one she is pregnant she cant be a virgin!!!!!

          • Anne Williams

            Isc Multimedia I was referring to the TEST for virginity. Please research as I advised . I shall now elaborate.: The TEST for virginity was the examination to see if the HYMEN was broken!!Kindly look up Hymen if you have not heard of it. The hymen is broken when women have sexual intecourse. HOWEVER, it CAN BE BROKEN in other ways when women ride, or take various vigorous physical exercise as well. Look before you LEAP into conclusions. Such women could therefore NOT be judged as VIRGINS in a TEST
            .It is a some what unusual condition which some Nurses and male Drs especially were and are unaware of as well but occurs as some Drs.and midwives have found in early PREGNANCY when women are examined. With this in mind women inspected AFTER marriage/intercourse in the early stages of pregnancy in a TEST for VIRGINITY with this condition would be deemed VIRGINS. As the obstetrician told my Mum after he had examined her.”Do you know you are still a VIRGIN?? One could then say, by the above test that there are VIRGIN Births!! OK

            .

          • Ricky

            Actually, such an examination is possible if done by an experienced gynaecologist. But it wouldn’t be appropriate to go into the details on this site.

          • Kathleen Ames

            Nonsense. No evidence any such examination took place

      • Cheryl Webb Clair

        And Diana made Charles believe that she cared about the same things he did: country life, fishing, etc. when in fact she did not like them at all. Not a bit. She was not a country girl, she was pure city girl. I would say that was pretty deceitful of her.

        • audrey pard

          In contrast to the evil pox raddled serial adulteress Camilla whore, Princess Diana was a VIRGIN when she married and her father was an Earl, together with being from one of the finest wealthiest English aristocratic families with more proven and documented Royal English bloodlines than Charles! Furthermore, Charles most certainly had many affairs while married; it’s a matter of recorded fact he actually admitted to this ON NATIONAL TELEVISION! Prior to idiot inbred TAMPAX Charles’s frequent other sexual encounters WITH MEN AND numerous women, Princess Diana had remained faithful – it was only after this pure, refined girl was discarded and treated so abysmally that she looked elsewhere for comfort!

        • VikkiB

          This isn’t an article about Diana. It’s an article about whether or not Camilla should be Queen.

          • Cheryl Webb Clair

            I was defending Charles. Kathleen Warner was saying that Charles deceived Diana and I was just saying that Diana also deceived Charles. Good grief.

          • Anne Williams

            Hi Cheryl,
            I think it was Penny Romsey who was Lord Mountbattens niece. Also, people call her a Rottweiler and croc.tytpical , Resorting to crude insults when they cannot bear to hear the trutch.What about all those photos at heart op. with eyes covered in Kohl and the hosp. room was that proper behaviour for any mother speshly a Royal ??one?Horses???Excusez moi :Guest :have yu ever seen pics of the Queen when a young woman and Princess Margaret who was a great beauty in her day.??Of course not. I once asked one of Diana’s fans. “How would you feel if the princess had not been attractive but a very good, kind ,caring person but plain person” and he thought again.!! What folk wanted was a glamorous film star mostly..Also ,remember that Diana’s Mother has Armenian/Indian blood too.Her Scots Forbes ancestor was’nt a saint. Research please./Buck House asked that the Press be kind to Diana etcwhen she was first married : and let her have some privacy which they did. However,when she learned the ropes,one well knowm reporter and photog, saw quite clearly that while she was being photographed once in a fairly short dress while seated, she actually raised her hem up her knee!!And he was one of her fans. All Diana’s fans can say when one uncovers the truth is a barrage of gross insults.. Another person who attended a Royal trip?, remarked, “when Diana walked looking glamorous ,”I was so proud to be British”!! which goes to show what criteria folk use to judge a person by. All the shyness vanished and even her bro’. remarked when folk mentioned it. “Diana shy”??? She soon learned how to manipulate the press and several times spectators even held placards saying.”We want Diana NOT Charles. to loud chanting How would someone feel to see and hear all that??It seemed very obvious to me that the crowds wanted a glamour puss, and Star. She was friendly and not shy as she seemed with a very different upbringing to that of Prince Charles.A lot of the Royals visits to hospitals etc did not have the Press interest Diana had. It was Princess Margaret who first visited AIDS patients but Diana was given all the credit instead. I expect ‘Guest’ must have done a genealogical ancestry search and is a expert on Genes??The Spencers were farmers who made good and were on the make . They even assumed the Arms of more illustrious Spencers they could not claim ancestry from. See historian ‘Round’ and others.Most of us were pleased once Diana became accustomed to her role but as most of her friends noted, she needed FULL TIME ATTENTION they and her Beaus could not provide.

          • Anne Williams

            Hi Cheryl, I’ve checked , The person who was concerned at Princess Diana’s naivety and ‘sense of wonder’ at the thought of being a’ Royal Princess ‘and future Queen was Penny Romsey who was Lord Louis Mountbatten’s grandson’s wife! Takes a very strong, immensely calm,and wise person to be a Royal these days, what with the Media interest and even drones.

          • Kathleen Ames

            True. But so many still dislike poor Camilla because they think, wrongly, that Diana was innocent in all this . She was a minx.Who thought she could change the royal family and tradition overnight. When she didn’t get her own way she resorted to tantrums and accusations.

          • Guest

            And she most certainly did! Until Diana, the “royal family” looked liked horses. Diana brought beauty, good genes and heart to the future of the monoarchy. Once Liz, Chuck,
            and his Rottweiler of a wife die off, the monarchy will forever be a result of the kindness, beauty and love started by HRH Princess Diana.

          • Kathleen Ames

            Who have you been looking at? Both HM The Queen and her sister Princess Margaret and their mother (Queen Mum) were beautiful young women, And they were natural beauties unlike Diana who had her hair dyed and her eyelashes as part of her complete makeover before her wedding and she had to continually work out to keep her figure which carried on throughout her life.

          • Anne Williams

            The Royals .i.e the Queen and Princess Margaret were beauties before they married. Take a look is you can. Did you really want they them to have constant plastic surgery into their later years. The Queen herself looked pretty good at the Royal wedding of Prince Charles to Diana.Just goes to show what folk deem important . Beauty is only ‘skin deep. Camilla is a very kind,calm and supportive woman to our Prince by all accounts of those who KNOW her well and shows it too. Do we really want a beautiful drama Queen and lovely,clothes horse ? NO -They belong in Hollywood and on the silver screen.

          • Kathleen Ames

            Well said. I have also suggested he take a look at The Queen, Princess Margaret and the Queen Mum. All natural beauties not ‘made over’ as Diana was

        • Anne Williams

          You are right Cheryl. That was absolutely true as her own Grandma remarked about her honesty There were the constant phone calls from KP which she denied., HER blatant untruth about the info. re: her book etc.She was also nick named ‘Duchess’ by her siblings referring to her aims. Her own admittance of her naivety after the divorce. The Prince was shown with his arms gently around her as she gave one of her early speeches on TV and wore his wedding ring long after the divorce.He even gave his loved pet dog away on her insistence..Also her treatment of her step Mum was particularly harsh, re;throwing her clothes down the stairs. Even Prince Charles’s, cousin Penny? remarked at her ‘enchantment and thrill of being a Princess of Wales.! Its sad, she did’nt find a Duke or Billionaire instead but he would have had to be perfection as some who knew her well attested as she needed ‘full time’ attention. A very sad tale of a young lady who did have an ‘Alice in Wonderland’ dream. Pity she did’nt have trial run as the others did.

          • Cheryl Webb Clair

            The Penny you are referring to could be Penny Junor who is an author of several books about them and other royals. You are pretty much spot on except about the wedding ring, he never wore one. None of the royal men do. I have no clue why, but they don’t. I could be wrong about that, but he didn’t and William doesn’t. Charles wears a signet ring on the little finger of his right hand.

      • audrey pard

        Camilla was most certainly not suitable pox riddled and – from a family of whores she also followed in her familys family tradition!

      • Kathleen Ames

        Not true. Diana was always a ‘suitable’ partner with her background. HE had led a sheltered life and was confused and naïve and did not have the courage to marry Camilla when he had the chance.

        • Anne Williams

          The Prince was concentrating on his Naval training at the time he first met Camilla and was devastated when she became engaged. Nothing to do with courage at all. Ladies sometimes mature before men and Camilla was enticed by the very nice and charming , Mr Parker Bowles instead’ who would’nt be?She may have thought there was no chance with the Prince.

    • Shelley Dagenais

      Only after she finally realized she never was the true love of her prince’s life, nor would she ever be. She was the bearer of the Heir and the Spare. She was not treated well by the royals even as the mother of their future!

    • audrey pard

      It’s tragic THAT CHARLES CHEATED IN THE MARRIAGE FIRST, HAVING ADMITTED TO THIS SERIAL ADULTERY ON NATIONAL TELEVISION. Charles even slept with the married adulterous
      Camilla whore, the night before his wedding and had sex with numerous women and MEN throughout the marriage that has been widely reported. It’s sad that SUCH A FILTHY DISEASED OLD WHORE AS CAMILLA HAS THE MORALITY OF AN ALLEY CAT and her
      numerous lurid debauched sexual encounters documented. Two years ago she fell over drunk and broke her leg, such a pity it was not her neck! Hopefully the vile whore will die of cancer in agony or STD’s like her whore mother or blown away by terrorists like paedophile uncle mountbattern!

      • Ricky

        That has to be one of the nastiest, most horrible posts I’ve seen on any subject. There’s no way you could possibly know such details of these people’s personal lives.

        You forfeited all credibility by the use of such filthy language, and I sincerely hope your comments will be deleted. By attacking the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall’s morality in such a way, you’ve shown yourself to be utterly lacking in that quality.

        If it was up to me, you’d be banned from this site for writing such evil things.

        • Ricky

          Would you care to cite your source for the quote you attribute to the Queen? Thanks in advance.

        • Monica Cunningham

          I fully agree with you Ricky.

  • Ludmila

    Diana has been in my heart forever

  • Elizabeth Ablett

    You are entitled to your opinion but I do not relish Camilla as Queen. If had not been for her Diana would be alive today.
    I don’t think Charles will be king, his mother is in good health and will never abdicate, so the argument about whether Camm ill win be Queen is irrelevant.

  • Kathleen Warner

    Well, why is she not called the Princess of Wales? According to you, that would have required an Act of Parliament, evidently not. The Queen decided she would not have that title, that it would not be good PR, which every “firm” knows is vital. The Queen’s office also said she would not be Queen when Charles became King, but the Princess Consort, the Queen or her ministers may have made that part of the agreement allowing him to marry her. I think if she were made Queen, there would be an uproar. Just from comments on this very site, I know that many people still despise her. Many people are not happy with the idea of Charles becoming King, to further upset them by having Camilla become Queen doesn’t seem like a very good idea. There are many people that feel she has taken Diana’s place in important matter’s, such as her son’s wedding and the Christening of her grandchildren. After all, she and Charles are the reason Diana herself would not become Queen. If she had still been married to Charles in 1997 many think she would still be alive. George IV had the Cathedral doors locked to keep his wife from his Coronation and at a time when the Royal Family were basically despised, and the Queen Mother gave herself that unique title, which had never been used before and may never be again. Great Britain did not become a Republic over either matter. Camilla, if you are a believing Anglican, is worse than Mrs. Simpson. Edward the VIII was not a married man. Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall committed adultery and ruined a marriage. With his mistress in the wings, Princess Diana never had a chance. Though I am not one who despises the Duchess, I do think it would not be a good idea to have
    as our Queen. They were not allowed to be married in the Church, but had to be married in the Guildhall. The Queen did not attend their wedding. I think that really says it all. The Church may very well refuse to crown her Queen, as she’s a divorcee with a living ex-husband. Prince Charles is getting by because his wife is no longer living. No I am not one of the people that thought Prince Philip, or any other member of the Royal family, had anything to do with her death. It was just a tragic accident.

    • http://www.blogspot.fabparis.com/ Jennifer Clark

      Camilla uses one of the other titles of the Prince of Wales. In Scotland, they are referred to as the Duke and Duchess if Rothesay, the traditional title of the heir apparent. Legally, she is the Princess of Wales.

    • Kathleen Ames

      HM The Queen does not prevent Camilla from using the title Princess of Wales but Prince Charles does out of respect to Diana’s memory and their sons. However, as the wife of The Prince of Wales it is her most high ranking title, followed by Duchess of Cornwall, etc etc as listed elsewhere. The Queen’s office did not decree that Camilla cannot be called Queen. It does not have the power because it is HM The Queen’s office and when Charles is King that office will no longer exist.

  • Cassandra Helen Harding

    I am in Australia and I here what you are saying . . . However . . the republicans are trying very hard here to push a republic on us and are waiting just for that to happen .. and they are unfortunately BANKING on the ” so called ” bad image of Prince Charles and Camilla to push the republic through . .. they don’t see the good work .. in fact they do everything they can to smother it and even besmirch any article with the monarchy with favourable Republican articles – Princess Anne came out during one of our Fire Situations to give comfort etc . . her appearance barely rated a mention . . . Likewise Chairles and Camilla’s visit was covered MINIMALLY again to push this through .. . they make mention of the ” Diana ” thing over and over to tarnish any good doing the monarchy as a whole .. Whilst I understand the position of the title etc and have no doubt that Prince Charles will have her called Queen Camilla as is her lawful right . . I feel the bad press here in Australia that these republic Media outlets will swing it to FORCE this UNWANTED republic on us !!! . . as it is they are already waiting for HM to pass before putting the referendum to us .. they have infiltrated the schools and deliberately taught all children to VOTE in a REPUBLIC and DENIED the Benefits of a Constitutional Monarchy being taught in schools . . and the Whole Diana Scandal is what they are using as an example of putting the Monarchy down to our future generations to destroy this country for their own personal agenda and gain !!! . . . SAD to say .. these people will not Change their mind or opinion despite the SUCCESS of Prince Charles and Camillas last visit .. . our only hope and ray of sunshine is When Prince William sits on the throne . . the Republicans FEAR his and Catherine’s ” Popularity “

  • Shelley Dagenais

    I do not think she should ever become Queen as she is not fit to be, with the adulteress position she took in the first marriage of the prince of Whales. . Princess Diana yes but unfortunately she was not given the opportunity to live up to the position.

    • http://www.blogspot.fabparis.com/ Jennifer Clark

      If adultery were a disqualification for the throne, England would not have had some of its best monarchs. Elizabeth I comes leaping to mind.

  • Shelley Dagenais

    Maybe Charles and Camilla should take a lesson from the Duke and Duchess of Windsor. They were the True Heirs to the Throne and gave it up not because of Their Adultery, or Parliament, but because of the respect for the sanctity of the throne and the archaic views of some. They lived their lives, free to be who the wanted to be. Charles and Camilla are just disgusting in what they did to Diana and her boys. they do not deserve the right to be King and especially
    Queen.

    • http://www.blogspot.fabparis.com/ Jennifer Clark

      The Duke of Windsor was already King when he married Wallis. The issue that caused the government to draw its line in the sand was whether the King could be the head of the Church of England, and marry a twice-divorced woman with two living ex-husbands. He choose the woman, and gave up his crown. Frankly, it was damn good thing; King Edward was a weak, undisciplined man of highly questionable judgement. I shudder to think what would have happened with him on the throne during WWII. The man admired Hitler.

      • Ricky

        The Duke of Windsor had already abdicated when he married Wallis Simpson the following year; in other words, he was no longer King.

        • http://www.blogspot.fabparis.com/ Jennifer Clark

          You are correct, of course. Allow me to re-phrase. Edward was King and the Head of the Church of England when he declared he would marry Wallis. Which was unacceptable to his Government

      • Kathleen Ames

        he was only king by accession (i.e the death of his father) he had not been crowned nor taken the Oaths of duty. Therefore he was not technically king, plus he had abdicated and left the country by the time her married Wallis

  • Margaret Rose Robertson

    I for one will never forgive her & charles for what they did to Diana!!!!!!!!!?

    • Ricky

      I’ll alert the media.

  • Margaret Rose Robertson

    Henery 8 th was the last king to make commoners but since no am I right?

    • Ricky

      I’d answer your question gladly if I could understand it.

      • Kathleen Ames

        Just thinking the same thing!

  • Brenda

    No she should never care total of queen by law charges should pass to his son.. Yes she what Charles wanted and he seems happy with her but laws of royals are she divorce person he lost his place as king if they choose to let him be king she should only carry her total before Wed.. My great. Grandmother was royalty from bravia . married non royal she left come to USA..

    • Ricky

      What or where is Bravia? I did a Google search, and all I could find was a brand of television.

  • Tom Edwards

    I wouldn’t mind so terribly Camilla being queen. It’s Charles being king that is an utterly nauseating prospect. H.M. Elizabeth should abdicate in favor of William.

    • http://www.blogspot.fabparis.com/ Jennifer Clark

      Her Majesty will never abdicate. And Charles would be King if she did. Perhaps some comfort can be taken in the thought that Charles will not be on the throne long? Think of him as a place-holder for William.

      • http://www.blogspot.fabparis.com/ Jennifer Clark

        Do you really think so? I cannot agree. Charles has been doing his duty as Prince of Wales since 1952! He is the patron of hundreds of charities, started the Prince’s Trust, and encourages organic farming methods.

        • Ricky

          After many years of study, I consider myself very well informed about 20th century royal history, but I’ve never heard of “The Succession Act of 1936.”

          Nor am I aware of any legislation that forbade Edward VIII’s heirs from being in the line of succession. The King included his descendants in the Instrument of Abdication, but that was not an act of Parliament.

          A Google search yielded nothing by that name, so could you please elaborate on what you’re referring to?

          • Tom Edwards

            “””I consider myself very well informed about 20th century royal history, but I’ve never heard of “The Succession Act of 1936.”“””

            The “Abdication” Act, I should have said. Paragraph 2 of The Act spells it out, and the King’s own statement reaffirms it:

            “His majesty and his issue if any and descendants of that issue shall not alter his majesty’s abdication or have any right title or interest in or to succession to the throne and section one of the act of settlement shall be construed accordingly.”

          • Kathleen Ames

            Ricky. In fact if Edward VIII had married Wallis Simpson he would have had to agree to a Morganantic marrige would mean that any issue could not enjoy any rights or privileges afforded to royal persons. This was one of the conditions which he refused to accept nd therefore adbdicated.

          • Ricky

            Yes, if a morganatic marriage been made, those descendants would have no place in the succession. But under normal circumstances, Edward’s heirs would have had regular royal status.

          • Kathleen Ames

            Of course his heirs would have had normal rights under nornal conditions. But Edward’s circumstances were far from normal. That is why ‘conditions’ were placed upon him. You had obviously not heard of those conditions as you were unaware of the question of the Duke of Windsors descendants. It was not the Duke himself who removed his descendants from th was te succession it was, he fought it desperately. It was the Ministers who gave him these as an ultimatum

        • http://www.blogspot.fabparis.com/ Jennifer Clark

          Richard II was deposed and murdered! Surely, even Charles doesn’t deserve that!? 😉

  • margaret rose robertson

    The one thing everyone forgets is she has had an on going Affair on Charles and he cannot Divorce her now he is stuck with her?

  • Cheryl Webb Clair

    Actually there was indeed friendship between them after the divorce. You might want to do a little research.

  • Allan Cameron

    As in 1936 The Church of England did not allow the marriage of the King and Mrs. Simpson on the grounds that The Monarch, who is the Head of the Church of England, could not marry a Divorcee. Although we have ‘moved on’ in the last 79 years, I firmly believe that the Church of England, a Centuries Old Establishment could well evoke that precedent and forbid Charles and Camilla, Both Divorcees, from the Throne, thereby making the way for Prince William’s family and heir to the Throne of the next generation.

    • Ricky

      The Church of England was established because a King wanted to divorce his wife, so I don’t see any potential for conflict. Sooner or later, the Church will adapt, as secular society already has.

    • Kathleen Ames

      I repeat. HRH Prince Charles is a widower not a divorcee and so he is perfectly entitled to marry and become Head of the Church. They are married in the eyes of the Law of the land and Blessed by the Church of the land. The current Church of England ‘rules’ were created by a king who wanted to divorce his queen!

  • Expatmartin

    What is the official position of the CofE on the matter these days?

  • audrey pard

    Members of the Royal family are excepted from the provisions of the Marriage Act 1949, and their marriages in England and Wales MUST be performed by Anglican clergy. There would be no obstacle to The Prince of Wales remarrying in Scotland as did his sister The Princess Royal where the Royal Family are not excepted from the provisions of the Scottish Marriage legislation. ‘TAMPAX’ CHARLES ‘MARRIAGE’ IS ILLEGAL BECAUSE HE REMARRIED IN ENGLAND NOT by Anglican clergy AND HE WAS AWARE OF IT WHEN HE ILLEGALLY ‘MARRIED’ THE VILE adulterous CAMILLA Parker bowles WHORE

  • Ricky

    The first Supreme Governor of the Church of England was divorced, so that’s really no problem.

    • http://www.blogspot.fabparis.com/ Jennifer Clark

      Little known tidbit; Henry VIII had all his “failed” marriages (Catherine of Aragon, Anne Bolyn, Anne of Cleves & Catherine Howard) annulled.

      • Kathleen Ames

        A mere technicality on his part ‘cos he wrote the rules!

  • http://www.blogspot.fabparis.com/ Jennifer Clark

    Parliament may, in theory, have the power to pass over Charles, but it will never happen. Unless revolution breaks out. But I believe that sort of thing won’t happen in modern Britain. Something very, seriously bad would need to happen to provoke parliamentary action of that magnitude.

  • beatrix bosman

    Yes, in my opinion, Camilla should become Queen. How can people be so nasty to her – when she had not harmed them or their families personally, in any way? The Bible clearly states that we are to forgive those who have wronged us – how much more then to forgive those who have NOT harmed us? I admire her for her strength of character, for it cannot be pleasant for her to read and hear people speaking so ill of her – and still she has remained the same poised and self-controlled person thst she ever was. I really like her.

  • Aron Brondo

    but, she is divorced. and what happens, now that same sex marriage is legal, if an heir chooses openly such a union? which does not preclude that they might have issue. – an heir. do we pick and choose? or do we embrace the next millenium?

    • Ricky

      Perhaps you were unaware that the first Supreme Governor of the Church of England was a divorced King who wanted to remarry. Not a problem.

      The succession to the monarchy is not a popularity contest; it has clear rules. The personal relationships of members of the Royal Family are no one else’s business, and are not grounds for choosing who should or shouldn’t be in line to the throne.

      And so what if a future heir to the throne decides to marry someone of the same sex; would that be so terrible? Most people nowadays believe that other folks’ private business is just that; their own private business.

      Most people find that kind of bigotry repugnant; I know I do.

    • Kathleen Ames

      Let’s resolve one situation before we start worrying about another!

    • Ricky

      So what if a future heir to the throne was to marry someone of the same sex; would that be so awful? People have the right to marry whom they choose now, which is as it should be.

      Try to learn how to practice tolerance instead of judgement, and stop being a bigot.

  • Dan

    I read this article with great interest. As a monarchist and great fan of the royal family, I firmly believe that Camilla should be Queen. I have followed the monarchy for many years and even attended the Silver Jubilee celebrations in 1977. I closely watched as, sadly, the marriages of Charles and Diana, Andrew and Sarah, and Anne and Mark ended. Camilla has brought such happiness to Charles and that is how it should be. Diana will never be forgotten as she lives on in her boys but we also need to move on.

    • Ricky

      Well said, Dan. I especially liked your last sentence.

  • Barry Sheard

    Heaven forbid

  • Margaret Elaine Fronk Pettit

    What difference does it make what title she has. She has a husband who loves her. She should be glad that she even has a title.

  • Dorrie M Galea

    If the Duke of Cornwall becomes king then she is ipso facto queen. No two ways about it.

  • Judy Dawe

    Neither Prince Phillip nor Prince Albert were kings to Queen Elizabeth or Queen Victoria. So the precedent has already been set. She SHOULD NOT be queen. So consort is fine for her. She may be and done all the things you say, but that doesn’t change the fact she’s not well-liked. Many aren’t that thrilled with Charles being King either. Long may Queen Elizabeth reign.

    • Ricky

      Princes Consort are not Kings because of English common law regarding titles in the UK. Women take the female equivalent of their husbands’ titles unless they already hold a higher British title of their own, but this does not happen in reverse for men.

      Queen Consort will be Camilla’s title when the Prince of Wales becomes King. The personal opinions of the public have no bearing on this, nor should they.

      • Kathleen Ames

        She will be Queen not Queen Consort. That title would, I believe have to be bestowed upon her as Victoria did for Albert. Queen will be automatic.,

    • Kathleen Ames

      You obviously don’t understand the system. King is higher title than Queen (traditionally) but if there is a Queen in her own right (as HM Queen Elizabeth is) then her husband obviously cannot be king. A king’s wife is queen and Camilla will be.

  • Jeffers

    The long and short: Camilla’s style will be Queen Camilla, regardless of what people want. She may choose to use a lesser or manufactured title as her style, but it doesn’t change that she will be the Queen… period. (She could easily be known as the Duchess of Lancaster…) She will actually be a Queen Consort, where Elizabeth is a Queen Regnant.

    The reason is simple: In the British Peerage, a wife takes her title and style from her husband, unless she has a greater one in her own right. So, when Charles becomes King, She becomes Queen – full stop. It doesn’t matter what they call her.

    We saw something similar with Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother. When her husband died, her Mother-in-law, “Queen Mary” was a Dowager Queen and Queen Elizabeth also became a Dowager Queen entitled to the style “Queen Elizabeth”. To prevent confusion with her daughter, Queen Elizabeth (a Queen Regnant), they made up a new style for her: The Queen Mother. This would be the precedent for creating a unique style for Camilla. It wouldn’t change her title and her rights, but it would be a choice to call her something else.

    Right now she’s entitled to use “The Princess of Wales” but does not out of respect for unique situation. But, she uses one of Charles’ lesser titles, Duke of Cornwall. However, she *IS* in fact “The Princess of Wales” at this moment.

    It is a simple fact. It’s how the system works. It’s not open for debate.

  • terri

    “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,”

    I think that this part of the article pretty much says what Camilla title should be when/if Prince Charles becomes queen….
    there was also another article that i read a bit back that said that the highest title that Camilla can have is Princess Consort because right now she does not hold the title that she needs to have to get the title of Queen…and thats the title of Princess Charles…

    • Ricky

      I’d like to know where you heard that Camilla doesn’t have the title “Princess Charles,” because she certainly does.

      Would you care to share your source?

      • Kathleen Ames

        Ricky it is not quite correct or normal for the wife of any royal to use the name of their spouse in the way you suggest. They take the title, not the name, of the husband, i.e, The Princess of Wales is Camilla’s principal title, followed by the lesser ones. Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay etc. Princess of Wales is not currently being used out of respect for the late Princess Diana but it is Camilla’s title as his wife. The title Princess (husband’s name) is normally only occasionally used such as the wife of Prince Michal of Kent who is titled Princess Michael of Kent because she has not been afforded any other title. Catherine, wife of Prince William has not been afforded the title of princess as it would mean that, as wife of the heir presumptive she would outrank the Duchess of Cornwall and Princess Anne the Princess Royal. As Camilla is not the mother of the heir to the throne, she ranks lower than Catherine until she becomes Queen. Hence her title and Catherine’s of Duchess to make them equal rank. Camilla is however obliged to bob a curtsey to Catherine while Princess Anne is not as HM The Queen was most anxious not to demote Princess Anne from her role as senior princess.

        • Ricky

          Kathleen, rather than arguing the point, let’s ask the moderator about this one.

          Royal Central;
          Whether or not they choose to use them, do the two Duchesses have the titles Princess Charles and Princess William?

          I was pretty sure of my facts, but I defer to your expertise.

          • Kathleen Ames

            OK apologies but in my long life as a royal supporter I have never once known anyone use that form of address.

          • Ricky

            Don’t apologize for what you believe!

            I’ve studied all things royal for a long time, but occasionally I get my facts wrong and I appreciate the chance to learn when I’m corrected. When I say this, I don’t mean to imply you’re incorrect; I’m talking about my own experiences.

            Let’s wait for Royal Central to tell us what’s correct, and then we’ll all know for sure.

          • Kathleen Ames

            Actually Ricky, I thought I was replying to Royal Central who had confirmed what you were saying and I was unable to correct it. I do not think that Princess Charles is an official title any more than Princess William is. It is certainly not listed in her official list of titles. I too have studied the Royals – all of my life since I could read and write – and I have never heard of anyone either the Queen Mother or anyone else referred to as Princess George etc.nor seen in their titles the name as you suggest. With the exceptions I quoted such as Princess Michael of Kent and that is only because they have no other title to call their own. Princess Marina, Princess Alice etc etc took their own names and their husbands’ titles. Anyway we shall see.

    • Kathleen Ames

      What you say is incorrect. Camilla does not need any titles to become Queen. She only needs to be the wife of the King. The wife or husband of a Royal takes the title of Royal, not the name. Hence Camilla is not, nor likely to be called Princess Charles and is currently Princess of Wales (not being used in deference to Diana), Duchess of Cornwall (Charles is the Duke of C) and so on and so on. She can have any title that Prince Charles chooses to bestow on her.

  • Karen Price

    I think she should be queen she carries herself with dignty unlike saint diana who just wanted a fairytale

    • Kathleen Ames

      At last a voice of reason!

  • Kiri te Moananui

    Can Duchess Camilla bow any further down to the society in the UNITED KINGDOM as well as the societies that bind the future King to the commonwealth?

  • Kris Lonon

    I think Princess Consort should absolutely do and she should be grateful to get that. There is no precedent apart from Wallace Simpson, who, with the King, had the good grace to withdraw and allow those who could present a better moral face to the world take over.
    While I agree she has been on her best behavior and has done her very best since marrying Charles, it doesn’t erase either of their behavior prior to their marriage. If she’s to have a title, then Princess Consort should do.

    • Kathleen Ames

      The point is that it does not matter what they choose, at the time, to call Camilla, as the wife of a King, she will be Queen. Nothing can change that fact.

    • Kathleen Ames

      We are not calling her Queen Camilla. We are discussing what she will be called when she is Queen. What you or anyone thinks she should be called is irrelevant.

    • Kathleen Ames

      Incidentally Wallis did not withdraw as you claim. She was forced out when the then King Edward VIII abdicated. Their position was entirely different. Wallis had already been married and divorced not once but twice. In addition that was 1935 and times and situations and lives were entirely different than they are today.

  • john

    yes well written but she should never be queen

  • michaelmichelle benson

    no she has no right to be queen ,her and charles betrayed diana ,alone with the people . king edward was not married

    • Ricky

      If she’s the King’s wife, she has the right to be — and will be — the Queen.

  • veronica harmes

    i have always been lead to believe that a catholic or a devocie could not become a king or queen
    i may be on my own but i could never accept camilla as queen a consort yes

    • Ricky

      You’re correct about Roman Catholics being barred from the succession. The Church of England was established because a divorced King wanted to remarry, so that’s obviously no obstacle.

      When the Prince of Wales becomes King, Camilla’s title will be Queen Consort.

    • Kathleen Ames

      I suggest you try looking around and see who marries who today, including Catholics which, incidentally, neither Charles nor Camilla are.. Charles is NOT a divorcee he is a widower. Diana, sadly is dead so he is a widower!

  • Guilherme de Souza-Girão

    If Prince Charles ans his actual wife are sufficient wise and moderately with a common sense would simply avoid such a most divergent question. This if Prince Charles ever becomes King of

    he United Kingdom. And once for all stop calling this lady Queen Camilla. It is just ridiculous. Duchess of Cornwall is more than enough.

  • Liam

    I completely disagree! I myself, am a huge admirer for the entire Royal Family, especially HM The Queen. Yet what you say here is absurd! It is well known that Prince Charles committed adultery on the late Lady Princess Diana, with the help of Diana: Her True Story- In Her Own Words. Camilla should certainly not be our Queen because of this action. We must still tie into our roots as a nation. In the past, the knowledge of this would be completely disgusted throughout the country, and they would never be allowed on the throne.

    Frankly, I believe it would be a complete disrespect to Lady Diana, but not only her- but to her children as well. If Camilla is crowned Queen, what would HRH the Duke of Cambridge think and HRH Prince Henry (Harry)? Knowing Royal protocol, they would not be able to say a thing, yet it may devastate them!

    Camilla may not be a bad person, but her and Prince Charles past actions prove that she can never be Queen. A huge disrespect in my opinion, especially knowing how HRH Queen Elizabeth II has spent so long on building up the Royal Family’s reputation to her people, would then result in it being completely destroyed if Camilla is allowed to be Queen.

    • Kathleen Ames

      Where have you been all your life? Have you not heard that Diana had at least 6 affairs?
      Camilla is married to HRH Prince Charles and whether you like it or not she will be Queen. s I’ve said before we live in the 21st century not the Dark Ages.

  • Monica Cunningham

    Quite right, Camilla should hold the title of QUEEN, she has been really lovely since her marriage to Charles, never, as you say, putting a foot wrong she has earned our respect. Good luck to this very nice woman. To the people who don’t want her to be Queen, I ask, what difference will it make to you?

  • paulbenn

    Charles and Diana deserved each other. He is a philandering unfaithful spouse and she was a doe-eyed Machiavellian schemer. Camilla seems like a nice woman caught in an impossible situation and has at least as much right as anybody else to become Queen. Good luck to her!

  • yvonne

    so Camilla is a divorced woman but hang fire folks Charles is a divorced man so they both divorced so where is the problem. Its 2015 not the 18 hundreds times change As King Charles will want Camilla as his Queen who are we to go against the wishes of our King.

    • Kathleen Ames

      Absolutely though technically HRH is a widower not a divorcee

  • Cat Figueroa

    NO! She is not Queen Material.. First of all not fair that she would get that high of a title when Queen Elizabeth’s husband is called Prince Philip,Duke of Edinburgh and does not bare the King title! What has she done to earn the title Queen really??? When Charles accedes the throne his wife should be the Duchess of Cornwall and that’s that!!!

    • Kathleen Ames

      How wrong you are. Far more queen materials than ever Diana was or could have been. Diana was too self centred. Camilla is Charles’ partner and support – wonderful Queen material just as the late Queen Mum was.

  • Dale Stiffler

    I have no problem with this lady becoming Queen

  • Dorrie M Galea

    Charles will become king on his mother’s demise. Yes? Yes.
    Charles is married to Camilla, yes? Yes.
    So Camilla becomes queen, yes? Yes
    But Camilla does not reign, no? No.
    So Camilla is Queen Consort, yes? Yes.
    See? Easy as that.
    Now, moving on…..

    • Ricky

      YES! At last, someone who clearly understands how the succession works and why Camilla will be the next Queen Consort.

  • Betsy LaDue Richards

    No one ever said life was fair. Although Charles’ and Camilla’s behavior
    was much less than professional and discrete in the past, they’ve gotten their
    act together and put on a good show now. This is just another case of the
    undeserving rising to the top, again. Might as well make the best of it….and
    look forward to the day when Prince William will rise to the throne. Won’t that
    be wonderful?

    • Kathleen Ames

      Not on curent showing. He isn’t interested

  • Gayle Wickham Firth

    Not begin a royal subject , but i do alot of royal history and as Charles and Camilla being King and Queen niether should be as they are both divorcee’s and they are both at fault for what happened ,if he had thought and been a Real man he would never have married Diana , Being Royal or not using people like ponds in a chest board ,you have to deal with how things come out from how we chose

    • Kathleen Ames

      When HRH Prince Charles married Camilla he was a widower not a divorcee. In any case, we are in the 21st century. Why cannot the Royals move into it when everyone else can?

  • lallala

    It is certainly time to move on. Camilla has shown the public her deep interest and genuine passion to help others. In my perspective, she deserves the title of Queen when Prince Charles ascends.

  • Dianne Hester Spell

    I think the next King and Queen should be William and Kate. Charles showed his true self by cheating on Diana.

    • Ricky

      Irrelevant; the matter is not subject to public opinion.

    • Kathleen Ames

      Well that can’t happen thank goodness thanks to the Laws of Sucession. If they showed any interest in carrying out any Royal duties it would be something but they are only interested in attending if it’s a sports event. Time they started learning the job and justifying their place.

    • Kathleen Ames

      … and what about her cheating on Charles – about six! times I believe – and she did it first

  • Kim

    She should not be queen. I will continue to say that. Charles should not be king either. He divorced and remarried. It’s how the law was and should still have been to this day. They both made horrible choices back then and should have to live with them and be punished for there actions

    • Kathleen Ames

      Prince Charles is a widower and perfectly entitled to remarry

    • Kathleen Ames

      I wonder if you can find anyone in your circle of family and friends who has NOT had more than one partner? I wonder if you can find many who have actually taken the trouble to get married in the first place?

    • Ricky

      It’s not a popularity contest, nor subject to public objections. Grow up; worry about yourself instead of judging others.

  • Kathleen Ames

    Couldn’t agree more with the article and this response. These people who constantly harp on about poor Diana forget that she was already mentally damaged and that she had at least six affairs to Charles’ one. I wonder how many of them know anyone who has had only one relationship in their lives – including their own. Oh whoops – we said it’s time to forget the past! I hope it will be sometime yet (sorry HRH) because I am Her Majesty’s biggest fan. But if I am spared to see it, I too will Hail Queen Camilla (whatever they choose to call her).

  • Kathleen Ames

    Oh? And Diana didn’t – at least six times?

  • http://vegastearoom.blogspot.com/ chandler_in_lasvegas

    The CoE does not recognize divorce. Charles and Camilla had a civil wedding and a church “blessing”. She should become Queen Consort when Mr. P-B dies and they have a proper church wedding. Until then, she is just an upgraded version of her great grandmother, Alice Keppel. She should be content with the HRH Duchess of Cornwall until then. Surprisingly, this has nothing to do with the Diana fetish, only Charles as future defender of the faith.

  • Kathleen Ames

    Prince Charles is NOT a divorcee he is a widower. Who knows what Camilla’s situation will be by the time Charles becomes King. Whatever they claim, the Church of England allows and recognises divorce in the day to day world. So what is the difference?

  • Kathleen Ames

    What a load of rubbish. How can you say you ‘saw’ her say…..I do not believe she would say or even think such a thing. I have personally seen her shake the hand of a number of verterans and people of all walks of like. She also handled a ghastly sweaty head band thrown by a sweaty tennis player.

    • Ricky

      I find that hard to believe as well; it doesn’t match with what others who’ve met Camilla all say.

      And she not only handled that sweaty headband, she auctioned it off on Ebay for thousands of pounds and gave the money to charity.

      • Kathleen Ames

        Correct

    • spopek

      Maybe she said that because she wasn’t wearing gloves.Don’t you think it was morally wrong for Camilla to seduce Charles on the night before his wedding to Princess Diana? Is that a future Queen? Or do you go by societies standards and not what is right under the eyes of God and tradition. What do you really think the Queen really thinks?

      • Kathleen Ames

        You obviously don’t watch our royals very carefully. Unlike HM The Queen, Camilla very rarely wears gloves other than in winter time. On VJ Day, she not only shook hands with all the veterans with her bare hands, she also later danced at the garden party with several of them again holding both of the veterans’ hands in her own bare hands – and she appeared to love it. There is in fact a photo of her dancing with one of them on Facebook now. I am totally confused as to how we got on to the subject of Charles’/Camillas’s alleged wedding night adultery of – what 30years ago? What you said is pure imagination on your part. If it did happen, which is unlikely, there would not have been an audience to report it. You Diana lovers just can’t get over the fact that Charles made a mistake with Diana and eventually went back to the woman he loved and who loved him. You appear to have become as bitter and twisted as Diana was. You conveniently ignore the fact that Daina had at least 6 affairs and totally harrassed one of them with night time phone calls until in desperation the man was forced to call the Police to trace the calls which were traced back to Diana. She slept with anyone in trousers who had enough money to support the lifestyle she wanted, ignoring her sons for the month before she died while on a yacht with the Fayeds. It’s over. Get your own life. Charles and Camilla are married and long may they reign.

  • Kathleen Ames

    Sorry this is such an old reply but you are quite mistaken in your view that Camilla does not have the love and adoration of her subjects. I assure you there are already a great many of them. And ther are equally as many who greatly respect her. Royals do not go about like starlets ‘blowing their own trumpets’ and advertising their good works. They just get on with them. As for William, he could not possibly take on the role. He is not interested in learning the job.

  • Kathleen Ames

    You could not be more wrong! British Royals do NOT abdicate. The late King EDward VIII later Duke of Windsor was forced to abdicate because he refused to accept the terms set out for his marriage to Wallis

  • Kathleen Ames

    HM The Queen will never abdicate believe me. She pledged her duty to her people when she was 21 and as she said at her 25th anniversary dinner at the Guildhall more than 30 years later in a most moving speech, something on the lines of ‘…although I made that pledge when I was young and green and in my salad days ………I retract not one word of it’. She has carried out her vows and her duty unerringly since 1952 and will not defer now. Unlike some continental monarchies, the British Royals do not abdicate. The late Duke of Windsor did not choose to abdicate was forced to do so because he would not accept the terms under which he was required to marry Wallis Simpson. He called parliaments’ bluff with an ultimatum and he lost.

  • spopek

    One thing I don’t understand; yes I am from the USA is why are you ready to right the Queen off. Like it seams Katleen is and ready to plan the Queens funeral. To make Camilla Queen. In The picture’s of mirrors that came out, the Queen look very beautiful, gracious, vibrant and very much a live. She does not seem like she wants to kick the bucket just yet. Even Camilla was very gracious, I just wish the designer of her beautiful gown would of hem it up so it is not piling up om the ground. It was a very very nice picture of Camilla.

    • Kathleen Ames

      I am just amazed that you think that because I commented that the Queen’s dress needs pressing in the new photo (4 views) you think I want to ‘write her off’! Nothing could be further from the truth. Where on earth are you coming from and what are you reading? You are seriously mistaken. For the whole of my life I have been Her Majesty’s biggest fan. I don’t think ANYONE on this site wants what you are suggesting just because we have made positive comments on behalf of Camilla

      • spopek

        Kathleen, I never seen the post your talking about and I thought you felt that way about the queen because of your comment of long Reign Camilla. Before you judge me and accuse me of what I think of you over a comment I never read. Maybe you should ask me. I am sure your a real sweet person. If you notice I did make a nice comment about Camilla of her portrait of mirrors only wished the designer of her gowned would of hemmed it nicer for her . I envy you that you live a county that has such a vast history of Kings and Queens. I love history. I would love to live in a Manor house in the country side in England if I could afford it, I would surly love to attend the Royal School of Needle work, that would be like a dream come true, but I do not think my husband and teenagers would let me. Please ask me if you think I am judging you on a comment before you assume I read. Sandra

      • Anne Williams

        Kathleen, I too have my very different views on our Monarch’s choice in hats but greatly admire how very sensible she has been all her life regarding ,her attire ,never giving offence and respecting the sensibilities of all she meets. Her devotion to duty amidst all that horrific,vile and appalling condemnation after the accident was truly shocking. She has endured such upheavals and the way she has faced it has been legendary. I’m truly glad she has had the Duke by her side. I for one have been so grateful we have had something so enduring as the Monarchy in our lives throughout the TWO reigns we have known.

        • Ricky

          Anne, are you saying you’re old enough to remember King George VI? If so, I truly envy you.

          His Majesty is my favourite royal of all, and I enjoy reading about his very interesting life and reign. He had great courage, and he was exactly what the country needed at that time.

        • Kathleen Ames

          Absolutely Anne I could not agree more, My heart broke over the way HM was treated at the time. We have been so lucky to have HM and the Duke by her side, and we are lucky too, to be able to remember her parents before her. Sadly I may not be around to see it but I also believe that Camilla can bring the same love and stability to Charles that the late Queen Elizabeth gave to King George VI and as Prince Phillip has given to the Queen, and they – Charles and Camilla – will make an excellent job as Monarchs in their turn.

  • Nrec Lleshaj

    Three thoughts come to mind: God called us to live in peace, mutual consent and law of the heart. As far as the wealth in my Papal Kingdom I will based on the scripture. Hebrews 13:10 We have an altar from which those who minister at the tabernacle have no right to eat. How do you do that? It’s a Secret. This way no one can manipulate scripture ever.

    • Ricky

      What does all that have to do with the article above?

      Or is that a secret, too?

  • Mark Christopher O’Dell

    At this point the current Queen seems like she will be on the throne awhile yet as she will not abdicate. That means the POW will be on the throne less than 25 or 30 years at best if his longevity is like his fathers and not men on his mothers side. He will be a caretaker King much like Edward VII. In taking care of the throne is it really worth the row of breaking precedent in such a big way? The Queen as the Monarch as Elizabeth II, Victoria and Elizabeth I are/were is after all very much a different sort of thing than a Queen Consort. The Charles and Di thing was indeed unfortunate and a fairy tale gone awry with wrongs done by both parties. I agree with this article in letting things progress as they should so HM King William V and HM Queen Catherine can ascend an untarnished throne and leave as such for Prince George.

    • Kathleen Ames

      Fortunately, William can only accede if Charles abdicates (or dies before Her Majesty). William has absolutely no training nor knowledge nor interest – so far – in becoming our Monarch. So let’s hope he shows some interest when his father takes over!

  • http://vegastearoom.blogspot.com/ chandler_in_lasvegas

    Then let them get married in church. They have a civil marriage. They have a church blessing. But marriage is a sacrament. If the CoE will mot marry the future defender of the faith, who am I to ignore the elephant in the room? Love Camilla, but her divorced husband is still alive and the CoE does not recognize divorce. There are not some arbitrary rules. If the CoE allows the future king to wed in church, then by all means Hail Queen Camilla.

  • HRHCaine

    I’m not disagreeing with you. Let’s leave your opinion out of the page. I thought your page was more on facts not you opinion. Disappoint in this article.

    • Ricky

      To whom are you speaking, please? This is an honest question, and not sarcasm.

  • Jackie Smyk

    How in the world can this ugly cow….opps, I meant woman become queen when she herself is divorced and so is the “man” she married? It goes against all the laws of the monarchy….I do not care how much good” anyone thinks she has done…she has just done that to make people forget what she really is…an adultress, a homebreaker, and just trouble. The crown should go to neither of them as divorcees…….

  • Guest

    I agree as well. If we love Diana, remember what she told the world in that famous interview…that she didn’t believe Charles should be King. She of all people knew about Charles and Camilla. I think Charles owes it to Diana, his sons and the people of England to step aside and allow Prince William to be King of England when Queen Elizabeth dies.

    • Anne Williams

      Prince Charles with all he has done re: The Princes Trust , for farming , for architecture and the environment is the THE MONARCH for our times as the latter concern is the most important of all.. He has shown himself to be a caring, kind and observant person of the state of our Nation but brought up differently to Diana and as his mother was .He WAS shy and Diana was NOT. She was not brought up to be a Royal nor the heir to the throne as Prince Charles was. As for her background, it was certainly not a HAPPY one as she came from a broken home and she suffered from Bulimia too. I for one, do NOT want a PUPPET for a Monarch but someone well cognisant of his people’s condition and the well being of all AND the present dire state of Planet Earth which he is.There is NOT a single matter he can comment without it being deemed ‘POLITICS.Should he simply smile and comment on the weather??? Might as well have a ROBOTIC effigy out of Madame Tussaud’s otherwise. It seems all these qualities are NOT recognised but just a pretty,face. kind though hysterical. The accusation against her son’s Nanny in public was horrific and totally untrue

  • Mar V

    Sorry to disappoint you but if Charles was going to be King it would have happened, the popularity of the British Monarch is at an all time high because of William and Kate, Queeen Elizabeth is still capable of being an active Queen for at least another 5 to 10 years when William will become King of England. The same as Prince Felipe of Spain, it will be passed to a new generation, why? if Charles is King he has the capability of being King for at least 20 years
    which would make Wiliam not be as important, the focus is on Wiliam and Kate and mostly the survival of the monarchy.

    • Kathleen Ames

      Sorry to disappoint you but – God forbid – unless Prince Charles dies – he will be our next King. This country has an order of succession. And thank goodness for that. William shows absolutely no interest in either carrying out Royal duties unless there is a football match involved, or learning the role. William, on present showing is much more likely to opt out. William and Kate appear to want the royal life style of privilege without doing any of the work!

  • Ricky

    Do you lead such a spotless and moral life that entitles you to judge people you’ve never met?

    Are you very close to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, and to they confide the details of their family relationships with you often?

    How fortunate we are, to have someone who is so well informed about the private lives of the Royal Family. Your inside information is a tremendous benefit to us all.

    What else did you overhear while standing in the corridors of Buckingham Palace, Kensington Palace, and Highgrove?

    I’m glad we won’t have to rely on tabloid newspaper gossip anymore, now that we have someone who really knows for certain that can educate us all.

    Thanks so much.

  • Tom Hilton

    Hear-hear!

  • Sean Moran

    “To become personally selective with titles brings the whole system of monarchy into question.”. Isn’t that precisely what Clarence House did by insisting on the title of Princess Consort for Camilla?
    As for the author’s suggestion that the public might be trying to punish Camilla, I think more likely they are trying to punish Charles. I’d suggest it would hurt Charles far more than Camilla if she doesn’t accede to the title of Queen.

    • Kathleen Ames

      I think you are probably right. Charles would like Camilla to be his Queen and it will be her title whether or not it is used at the time. Clarence House, that is Prince Charles, is not insisting on Princess Consort, it is merely a suggestion which was muted at that time. Between then and the future a different decision may be taken.

  • Kathleen Ames

    Where on earth do you get your stories from? What a wild and vivid imagination you have. Do you really think that if Charles an Camilla had an assignation the night before his wedding they would have had reporters standing by to record it? Get real. And where do you get your information concerning the Cambridge children? I could tell you a very recent and very different story. But with your vicious bitter imagination you wouldn’t believe it anyway. Are you a cleaner at their home as you think you are so well informed


Subscribe via Email

To receive the latest Royal Central posts straight to your email inbox, enter your email address below and press subscribe.

Join 649 other subscribers