Connect
To Top

Why Prince Charles must be King

It may shock some people who peruse this site to realise that, despite some misconceptions to the contrary, it is not the nature of the British Monarchy for its kings to be chosen by popular vote.

World-shattering, I know, but please, humour me.

By law, by tradition, and by expectation, the next King (or Queen) of the United Kingdom, and by agreement, the rest of the Commonwealth Realms, will always be the eldest child of the current reigning monarch. Or, lacking any immediate issue, the next eldest relative.

For better or worse (and I personally think the former), this is how the British Monarchy has operated for centuries, ever since the Norman Conquest of England by William the Conqueror in 1066.

Slight hiccups or alternative arrangements here and there notwithstanding. We’re looking at you, Lord-Protector Cromwell.

Photo: Michael Garnett (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) via Flickr

As such, it rather confounds and unsettles me whenever I hear someone spout something along the lines of “Prince Charles should really step down and let Prince William take over” or, worse, “Let’s just skip Prince Charles entirely”.

Now, I can expect this attitude from Republicans, who already have little reverence for the monarchy and its ways as it is, and already believe that heads of state should be elected, not born. I can even forgive mere royalists from holding to this sentiment, because they’re simply people who enjoy some aspect or another of the Royal Family, rather than professing any commitment to the British Monarchy as an institution within the British government.

You can enjoy a Royal Wedding without necessarily believing in royalty. Americans do it all the time.

However, it distresses me greatly when I see other monarchists announce that Prince Charles should be deprived of his rightful inheritance, as by rights they should know better.

“I Didn’t Vote For You (And Nor Do I Want To)!”

I’d like to repeat myself – British kings are not elected.

I emphasise this because people seem to have gotten the idea that we can, if we wish, skip a generation should we decide we like the next one better. In a recent poll conducted on Twitter, it was found that around 52% of 600 respondents would rather see Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge be crowned monarch before and instead of Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall.

But that’s not how the British Monarchy works, nor should it be.

We are a hereditary monarchy. The monarchy passes from one generation to another. While by no means perfect, it provides a smooth and seamless transition of power.

Elizabeth II Coronation Portrait via Wikimedia Commons

It means that our monarchy is not, unlike our parliament, marred by the dirt of partisan politics. The Queen never had to court with political factions or powerful interests to secure her throne. She achieved it solely by the Grace of God. It is her vocation; she is meant to be wearing that Crown and no one else.

I know the Divine Right of Kings is about as fashionable as ruffs, garters and codpieces, but there is an advantage in having a head of state who doesn’t owe their position to anyone but God. For one thing, their power can truly be exercised for the good of all, without needing to be divided between the various kingmakers. The monarch is not in any earthly debt, and neither have they incurred the wrath of a scorned faction who had placed their bets on a losing side. There is no contest, no conflict, and no contempt.

The transfer of power is thus prompt, painless, and completely peaceful.

Even if you believe in God about as much as you believe in the Lucky Charms Leprechaun, there’s a tangible benefit in this.

And this, in my mind, is what is so dangerous about the sentiment “We don’t like the Prince of Wales, so he should not become King”. It threatens this whole system.

The moment we start along the lines of “Let’s have this person rather than that person because they rank more highly in the polls”, we stop being a hereditary monarchy. We become, in essence, a Republic dressed in ermine.

While we’re at it, why not abolish the coronation and just have a swearing-in ceremony officiated by the Prime Minister rather than the Archbishop of Canterbury? Why not get rid of the Crown, Orb and Sceptre, and replace them with a copy of the British Constitution? Why don’t we get rid of the phrase By the Grace of God, and replace it with By the Vote of the People? Why not get rid of the title Monarch of the United Kingdom and have President of the United Republic instead?

However, I’m not just concerned out of my beliefs as a monarchist either.

I also think this presents a grave disservice to the Prince of Wales himself. For reasons I can only guess, His Royal Highness has the reputation of being something of a joke. Myself, I think this is completely unfair, and I’m confident Prince Charles will make a great king in his own right.

King Charles III — Or King George VII, We’re Not Sure Yet

Withholding Prince Charles from his inheritance is wrong in the respect that we’re unfairly denying him any chance to prove himself when his time comes.

His Royal Highness has an undeserved reputation for being a bit air-headed, but the truth cannot be further from that. The Prince of Wales is highly erudite, having written or co-written many works relating to philosophy, religious thought, the environment, and British architecture. If anyone has had the opportunity to hear him speak on such topics, or speak in general, he quickly reveals himself to be very thoughtful and insightful.

At a time when concerns about the environment, both natural and manmade, are reaching a point, I think Prince Charles will be exactly the monarch we need. He has spoken extensively on the importance of conservation long before any other major public figure thought to.

Furthermore, he’s shown himself to be thoughtful and sensitive to other people and cultures, a trait that will be invaluable in a country that’s increasingly become home to many different religious and ethnic groups. To say nothing of his realms that are already like this. Prince Charles’s sincere and earnest desire to connect with cultures different from his own will allow him to connect to his future kingdom in a way Queen Elizabeth II may not have been able to.

Not to a better degree. But a different one.

And ultimately that’s what Prince Charles’s reign will be – different and an adjustment. Each monarch brings their own style to the British Monarchy. The Queen has her way of doing things, Charles will have his.

It will be a matter of getting used to the change, like getting used to the feel of a new coat or a new car. Before long it will become routine. Before long, it will be what we expect of the monarchy. Everything will be right and well.

Finally, there is one last reason Prince Charles must be king. The matter of his son and grandson.

No Need or Desire to Rush

If you think about it, just why exactly would Prince William even want to succeed before his father?

Photo Credit: Chris Jelf/PA Wire

I don’t even need to appeal to a sense of Confucian filial loyalty, either. The Duke of Cambridge probably doesn’t want to be anywhere near the throne until such a time he has no choice but to accept it, for the simple reason that he’d probably want to live his life first.

The man is only just into his thirties. He’s not long been married to the Duchess of Cambridge. The Prince has just started a new career as an air ambulance pilot. Both his children are still young, with Prince George barely even in school and Princess Charlotte barely independently mobile. There’s a good chance there may be an additional child as well.

With all this considered, it should be apparent that Prince William would not want the disruption, chaos and stress that a premature accession would cause.

The moment Prince William becomes King William V, he will no longer be able to commit to his family, his career and his own interests as much as he would like. The Crown is all consuming, and by wearing it, he will be forced to sacrifice many things. What he desires himself will be moot. The Monarch can only do what his Monarchy demands.

Prince William of Cambridge would die, and King William of the United Kingdom must take his place like some terrible changeling.

If you truly profess a love and affection towards the Cambridge family, therefore, you would not wish an immediate succession upon them. You would want, and they would most definitely appreciate, the Cambridges to enjoy as many years away from Buckingham Palace and its dreadful protocols, traditions and demands as possible until such a time the family has grown.

Give them that valuable chance to be a family, to enjoy the life that brings, and to settle into the inevitability that one day it will end and duty will begin in earnest.

Prince Charles has done all that already. He’s raised his family – successfully despite everything – and he’s ready for the next stage of his duty to his country. For the sake of the monarchy, for the sake of his son, and for his own sake, Prince Charles must become King.

And we, as his people, must welcome and support him in that.

  • Vaughan Sinclair

    Well Written and Thought out.

  • Jan M Keus

    It all would be best when the Queen had taken one step back for many years and give Charles the chance to show what he is like. Why didnot she abdicate like more royalties have done? In my sight she is the problem, like Victoria who never gave her son the chance to grow into his duties as a future king. And when she at last had to, it was too late.

    • Adriaan van Liere

      It simply doesn’t work that way in the United Kingdom. Abdication, as in more bourgeois monarchies such as that of the Netherlands, is inconceivable in the UK, where the monarchy is much more than a profession. The current queen holds a deep conviction that her role is divinely ordained. She is not just the head of state, but mother of her nation and the Commonwealth. One does not, cannot, abdicate from that.

      • Lesleyc

        Well said and she’s also Head of the Church of England another factor.

        • Christopher Huber

          Which begs the point does the Church of England need an adulterer as its Supreme Head?

          • Lesleyc

            So many of his predecessors were, look at Edward VII, and that’s how the CoE began with Henry VIII.

          • micmac

            Is he committing adultery now? And by the way, is he the first adulterous Prince of Wales to succeed to the throne? Edward VII and George IV both spring to mind.

          • Kathleen Ames

            And those two are not even half!

          • Kathleen Ames

            Well since the Church of England was found on and by an adulterer x 6 Charles is a mere trainee.

          • Dana S. Leslie

            The CoE was *founded by an adulterer, after all.

    • Howard T

      Because abdication is not the way of British monarchy. The exception was Edward VIII who couldn’t have his own way and forfeited his crown. He was a popular figure but a very shallow individual totally unlike Prince Charles who is a thoughtful man of deep and caring convictions. Just the right man for the daunting job of king. The antipathy amongst large sections of the public because of Charles and Camillas union is based on their perception of Diana as some kind of saint, which she certainly was not, though she was a hugely popular figure who knew how to play the publicity game. Yes she was caring, yes she was a wonderful mother but she and Charles were never suited and were pawns in a matchmaking game played by the Queen Mother and her lady in waiting.

      • micmac

        I agree to a point with you, but I do think the press had a lot to answer for as well, in promoting that relationship, since even before the advent of Internet, press constantly shadowed Prince Charles, in particular, to find out what he was “up to”, with whom, and how much hoopla they can make out of such information. It seems that there were one or two incidents where the press discovered Diana was alone with Charles, and after that, the Royal family needed to look out for Diana’s virginal reputation and keep her “respectable”, you might say. Even the late Louis Mountbatten had been doing some matchmaking for Charles, with Amanda Knatchbull in mind, before he died in Ireland in 1979, it has been claimed.

        • Christopher Huber

          I sort of doubt Diana was carrying on any type of affair with Charles. He was messing around with a married woman at the time.If anything she would have been a beard to draw off accusations that he was gay.

          • Is he gay? My gaydar doesn’t go off on him.

          • Christopher Huber

            That was the suspicion back then

          • I would take Camilla for homosexual, not Charles.

          • Simon Axelby

            I am a gay man, with very finely tuned gaydar. I can tell you with confidence that neither Charles nor Camilla is gay.

            However, Prince Edward never fails to activate my powers. Sorry, Sophie.

          • legslyndy

            I say he’s Bi.

          • Ricky

            Based on what evidence, please?

          • Kathleen Ames

            Suspicions, gossip and rumour are one thing and constantly started by the Press to sell papers. Reality is something different and no one has ever been able to give proof.

          • Kathleen Ames

            We have absolutely no evidence that he was ‘messing around’ as you put it, with Camilla or any of the others who were linked to him by the Press. He was a shy young man simply trying to enjoy himself.

          • Irena GK

            Everyone knew that he was involved with Camilla. An old friend from the BBC confided long ago that there was a problem with Charles as he is involved with a married woman. Everyone in those circles knew.

          • Kathleen Ames

            Involved does not mean ‘sleeping with’. They had been friends since childhood., Why should he not have met with her?. Evil minds on here must be comparing what they do themselves. Men and women, even married men and women can be friends without sleeping together.

          • Irena GK

            “involved “in this case meant a physical involvement. Their circle was well aware of it.

          • Kathleen Ames

            Absolute rubbish. Gossip and unproven. They were friends and nothing has been proven to the contrary.

          • micmac

            No, everyone does not know he was involved with Camilla. Yes her husband was Charles’ polo manager, and yes, both he and his wife remained friends. But when the press “cottoned on” to Charles’ new romance it became press fodder, as it also did when Charles was reportedly seen on the royal train with a blonde who looked like Diana. That particular episode appeared in newspapers around the world from London to Sydney. Of all Charles’ past girlfriends, including Sarah Spencer, Diana’s own red-haired sister, Camilla, being also blonde, looked most like Diana, and so it seems Camilla was the fall guy when denials took place. According to what I’ve read, Charles wasn’t having an affair with Camilla at the time of his wedding, as Diana later claimed. By the time Diana claimed to Ken Wharfe that Charles was seeing Camilla, in the late 1980’s, there is already a strong whiff of Charles doing what he was already being blamed for doing.

          • Lesleyc

            Ronald Ferguson (Fergie’s father) was Prince Charles polo manager not Camilla’s husband, Andrew.

          • micmac

            Silver stick in waiting – whatever that is..

          • Lesleyc

            It’s a position in the Household Cavalry usually walks behind QEII and DoE at Garter Ceremonies and other events.

          • Kathleen Ames

            ‘Everyone’ knew nothing of the sort. What people did, like you are doing now, was speculate because they were seen together and were known to be sharing time together. Reality is a different thing. No one but the two people concerned knows what happened and no conclusive evidence has ever been obtained. They moved in the same circles, as did Diana but there is absolutely no evidence of a ‘relationship’ let alone a sexual relationship. Perhaps you are unable to be friends with a man without sex so you judge everyone by your standards?

          • Irena GK

            Diana knew, and stated so publicly. No-one denied it.

          • Kathleen Ames

            And Diana knew how? Did they invite her along to watch? Diana had a very vivid imagination as we all now know and she was also bitter and twisted so she would say that wouldn’t she? She said a lot of things that weren’t true, while all the time covering up her own affairs. Grow up woman.

          • micmac

            Diana was jealous of Charles’ rapport with Camilla, it was true. But Diana, herself, was very depressed at the time, after William’s birth, and their trip to Australia took it out of her as well. I’ve heard she didn’t like the heat, like a lot of British people, even the locals get testy. And her moodiness put a strain on their marriage that a better relationship would have resisted.

          • micmac

            Unfortunately, marriage is hard enough without a coterie of press agents, secretaries, courtiers etc, plus paparazzi following Charles and Diana. Diana got to be popular, so popular that Charles got jealous and felt pushed aside. She also got credit for some of his own initiatives and achievements at that early stage, whilst he was ignored. The Australian tour crystallized this, and the weather was too hot for Diana, who suffered from it, especially having previously suffered from post-natal depression, and especially as Prince William was left at some outback place, instead of staying with them at Yarralumla or Admiralty House. C and D had spectacular rows then, according to the notes taken for that tour, which were revisited in 2014, and it shows in the earlier 1983 photos. Camilla wasn’t with them then, but when they returned might have been a different matter, or at least Diana might well have believed. When after Christmas, she found she was expecting D and C did have some sort of rapprochement which didn’t last beyond Prince Harry’s first year.

          • Kathleen Ames

            I am fully aware that marriage is hard enough as I am just about to celebrate my 56th anniversary, However there is nothing new in what you say. It is all common knowledge but that still does not give any evidence that ‘everyone knew’ C&C were in a sexual relationship.

          • Lynn Taylor

            If he needed a sexual relationship with Camilla, then there was something missing in his sexual relations with Diane…………..Diana was far too young and inexperienced for him…..

          • micmac

            No, don’t think so. Charles knew he had to marry someone. But his marriage with Diana was far too hasty, pushed on to keep the press happy. You need more than mutual physical attraction to establish a working marriage.

          • micmac

            No he wasn’t. Diana was a young girl, inexperienced and misled by her step-grandmother’s romance novels, Hollywood films, the whole 1950’s and 1960’s playacting versions of so-called “romance”, and the allegedly “glamorous” life of celebrities. Prince Charles was the wrong person for her to marry, being far too old for a girl, traumatised by her own parents’ divorce, who had neglected her schooling, having failed to learn that marrying and living happily ever after is not really a career option, even for royalty. I still remember the easy reading books for little girls which listed “film star”, typist and ” wife and mother”, as career options.

        • Kathleen Ames

          Lord Louis Mountbatten had been trying to arrange a marriage for Prince Charles from the moment of his birth. And if he could have got one of his relatives the role he would have done so. Mountbatten was only interested in Mountbatten.

          • Mimi

            Bingo.

    • Kathleen Ames

      Because the British Royalty do not abdicate. We leave that to European royals and typically, The Netherlands is the only one that has followed this tradition with any regularity.

    • Simon Axelby

      I don’t know why you think it was “too late” when Queen Victoria’s eldest son inherited the throne. King Edward VII was an excellent King, and proved his critics wrong.

    • micmac

      She can’t and she won’t. After George VI, Elizabeth II would consider abdication an absolute anathema. It is now illness and disability which forces her to step back, which is why Prince William must now give up his ambulance job.

  • Richard.

    EXCELLENTLY put Mr. Mills. I couldn’t agree more. Thank-you for stating what should be the obvious so succinctly!
    One small point – should he choose ‘William’, H.R.H. will be King William V!

    • Tolgron

      Thank you for the correction! It’s been duly corrected.

  • Dwayne

    I am glad the queen has not abdicated she will keep her oath until the day she passes and that shows dedication in my eyes. There is not many people like her in the world. I have no problem with Charles I just don’t like that gold digger wife of his, can someone maybe explain why Edward VIII have to abdicate when he married a divorcee but Charles dose not?

    • Howard T

      Dwayne: Times change. Three of the Queen’s children divorced, something that could never have happened in the 1930s/40s. BTW The Duchess of Cornwall has done a fantastic job and is very popular with all those she meets, not at all the person you describe. She also comes from a wealthy family so your description is inappropriate.

    • micmac

      Camilla is never likely to be a patch on Wallis Simpson, though to do both ladies some justice, neither of them were as keen on marrying for titles as has been claimed. Edward VIII was already a king when he was romancing Wallis Simpson, and she still had to get a divorce from her second husband, Ernest Simpson. This was not granted until after Edward abdicated. Her first husband, Win Spencer, was a US naval officer, whilst there was some suspicions about Ernest Simpson having used his wife to social climb. Divorces were hard to come by in those days, there was a very real risk that the divorce might not be granted, and when such proceedings clashed with the constitution then Parliament told Edward he had to choose between the Crown and his choice of wife.

      There were other reasons for Parliament to be alarmed, especially as those were dangerous times in 1936, prior to World War II, and when the American, Wallis Warfield Spencer Simpson, later Duchess of Windsor, was rumoured to be in a relationship with Joachim Ribbentrop, the Nazi German ambassador to UK, it is easier to see that Camilla has been rather small fry in comparison. Especially as Diana had at least one extra-marital relationship, herself, whilst still married to Charles, though they must have both tried to reconcile their differences the Christmas before Prince Harry was born in September 1984. And especially as Andrew Morton’s book and then that Panorama interview constituted Diana’s divorce manifesto. She didn’t want to be treated the way her mother, Frances Shand-Kydd, had been treated years earlier.

    • Arielle

      same here Dwayne….cannot stand her….and recent reports are very damaging for camila….”getting drunk and verbally abusing charles often”…..living away from charles (she kept her own property after marrying charles, to escape from him)……….she cant stand him, just his title…she refused his marriage proposal and .only regained interest when Diana became the most photographed darling of the world….Camilla wanted that exposure and used Charles to get it……..she should never had interfered with that marriage. The same way Queen Elizabeth II (long live the Queen!) summoned her sister Margaret and illustrated not appropriate to be with a divorced man…..i wish she had done the same with Charles and Camilla…..forbade the union. He may have been unhappy but look now what he has sacrificed….just for a bellowing aggressive woman (who once held a knife to his face and told him to behave or else…..footage from adelaide visit)…..arggh

      • Simon Axelby

        Don’t believe tabloid news articles that report intimate details of Charles and Camilla’s marriage. When these organizations don’t have all the facts, they don’t hesitate to supply their own. The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall have a happy, stable, and loving marriage, and that’s the truth.

        • We live in an increasingly permissive society. Unfortunately, the average person hasn’t a clue how to moderate their consumption of junk- be it caloric food, spirits, bawdy material. Why should Royals be any different than others in this respect?

      • Kathleen Ames

        I don’t know what trashy magazines you read but Camilla has never done any of the things you claim. She loves now and has always loved Charles. She kept her house for precisely that reason, it is ‘her’ house and so would I have done. She is now able to allow her children to use it.

    • Kathleen Ames

      Because they were different times. Wallis had two husbands still alive. A divorced person was considered scandalous and could not even be introduced to a royal person. Luckily times have changed.

  • Jennifer M Georeno

    Excellent article and needed to be stated. I agreed with all you have stated and other people need to hear it. They just do not understand the implications of what is at stake. We have become a throw away society. Tradition has fallen aside and with it a sense of duty and purpose.

  • NL

    Thank you for this article. What I’ve seen until now from him, I expect Prince Charles to be a very appropiate king. Certainly he isn’t perfect and has made some major mistakes in the past, but as every human being he has the right to learn and to grow into this incomparable role. The last decade has shown him and his wife as deeply dedicated members of the Royal family, well aware of the requirements. – As far as I know, the abdication of Edward VII might have had also some political background as he was far too approving of the fascist developments in Europe at this time.

    • Kathleen Ames

      I am sure it’s just a typo but it was Edward VIII who was forced to abdicate.

      • micmac

        Edward VIII was given a choice. And the lady in question hadn’t yet got her divorce. In those days, only the innocent party in a divorce could get it ratified.

        • Kathleen Ames

          No he wasn’t given a choice, he had the choice, his alone. He was told that American who had divorced one husband and was still married to another was totally unacceptable. His ultimatum was ‘Let me marry Wallis and make her Queen or I abdicate’. They called his bluff and let him abdicate. A divorced person could not even be introduced to a royal at the time let alone marry into the family. There was no way the Government off the day was going to let that happen but the choice was always his

          • What has motivated the voting body on all matters Royal to allow these breaches of protocol? Baby, bathwater and all? What defines your identity these days outside of your wealth and titles? Is this the shell of the institution that always was hidden from scrutiny- does the emperor have no clothes?

          • Kathleen Ames

            What are you referring to?

          • micmac

            Yes he did get a choice. The wife or the crown, not both. He wanted his cake and eat it, too, and found that was the option he could not have. Read all about it (though the book is excruciatingly boring) in “The king who had to go”. Princess Margaret chose the crown – why couldn’t Edward VIII?

          • Victoria’s leadership style, from what I read, reflected more austere values and prior to this, there was no such thing as a matriarch for centuries. Women had to be virgins before they married into the family or they were shamed. Courtiers of all stripes were in abundance, and they were not subject to such stringent protocol to my knowledge. Only those who might wear the Crown were forced to comply with these requirements. I heard Diana was tested for virginity- is this true? And what has changed in Royal circles since she married Charles that might result in the abandonment of these principles? Never mind their original purpose- one assumes they are intended for a young, marriageable queen only.

          • micmac

            No, Diana wasn’t tested for virginity, as far as anyone knows or I have read anywhere. It seems the press and courtiers air-brushed any possible previous boyfriend, and some uncle or other said she was a virgin. She was so young that they were most likely right when Charles first met her, even if she was no longer one by her wedding night. And if and when Diana was caught, or even suspected of being alone with Charles the press went into a lather about it. No wonder that the courtship was hurried on, and no wonder that the marriage eventually failed. The couple barely knew each other, so that the press and the courtiers could get their properly chaperoned fairy-tale, Disneyesque beautiful, and allegedly virginal princess. We aren’t talking about custom and legend, or what suits a bunch of media moguls etc, but real human beings, who suffered thereby in the long run. Or that is my view.

            This was the 1980’s for heaven’s sake, not the first part of the 20th century. The pill had been discovered, and the Feminist movement was trying to get a better deal for women in both work and play. It wasn’t 1509, in the time of Catherine of Aragon where virginity on one’s wedding night was supposed to be a guarantee of fresh, disease free, princess-like, innocence, no matter what the trauma might be to the couple concerned, or the constant plagues lurking outside the bridal chamber, to gobble up everyone.

            Yes, Victoria did have more austere values, but by that time Great Britain had well gotten used to the idea of women as monarchs. They’d had Mary 1st (Tudor), married to England’s arch enemy, Philip II, Elizabeth 1st the allegedly virgin queen, Mary, Queen of Scots, Mary II (Stuart), who ruled alongside William III, and her sister Anne, who gave birth to 17 children with none of them surviving childhood. Victoria did have a matriarchal style, but by 6 February 1952, times were already a-changing, especially by 29th July 1981, with Maggie Thatcher as UK’s first woman Prime Minister.

          • Mummy lied to me, then, about Diana. How quaint. She grew up in a remote village where there were still Medieval notions about virginal purity and wedding vows. In my mind, it has more to do with the subject of devotion than disease or that sort of thing. I am not an avid reader of historical fiction or fact for that matter. I lean more towards the Arts and Sciences. I always took for granted that women had power because I was raised in a home without men. I do understand, however, that since the Romans conquered most of Europe, there has been no true Matriarchal society. A queen may rule, but how she makes her decisions has a lot to do with gender-dominance of the age at hand and the Church has always been strictly Patriarchal. Modernism, I’m afraid, has not moved us away from this underlying predominance.

          • Kathleen Ames

            We are not arguing here. That’s exactly what I said. He chose Wallis so he had no choice but to go. Princess Margaret was a totally different case. She was just in the flush of youth and had many boyfriends. When it came to giving up her wealthy privileged, spoiled lifestyle to live on a Group Captain’s pay, she took the former. With respect I lived through these events. I don’t need to red the book.

          • Lynn Taylor

            I remember these times as well…….Margaret had a choice, priviledge, pomp and wealth or to be plain ordinary Mrs……..she knew which side her bread was buttered when she made her choice……The marriage would never had lasted anyway, he was 18 years older and too shy and set in his ways for her, she was a spoiled, self indulgent snob, also over sexed who demanded her own way at all times, just reading her Autobiography says it all……..

        • Define innocent? Define crime? Nothing has meaning any more these days- there is no justice, no sense of right and wrong and it is disparaging.

          • micmac

            Good question in any divorce. In the case of Wallis Simpson, she was divorcing her husband for adultery, whilst flagrantly pursuing a relationship, herself, with King Edward VIII, no less. All because he said he wanted to marry her. English law suggested that the couple getting the divorce were in collusion, and the husband was merely clearing the way to allow Wallis to “social climb”, and therefore the case should not proceed. In 1975 no-fault divorce was introduced in Australia which stopped faux adultery cases where a gentlemanly husband staged being caught red-handed in an adultery scenario to allow his wife to get the divorce and keep custody of her children. All that is needed is proof that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, such as a separation or domestic violence.

            In Charles’ and Diana’s case, after Diana had done that Panorama interview, her divorce manifesto, you could say, it had become appallingly clear that their marriage had become so mutually toxic and broken down that adultery or no adultery, on either side, it needed to finish right there and then, for everyone’s peace of mind. There was no “innocent” party.

          • In retrospect, there was good reason for what otherwise might appear to be inexcusable acts. It is a matter of perspective, as they say, and a degree of knowledge that enables one to show some modicum of sound judgment. One might argue that women’s self-defence is gauche, that children ought have no rights to speak of- simply because nobody speaks for them. One might, likewise, argue that one’s ignorance of the law makes it irrelevant. Customs, on the other hand, are the result of little more than habits and can be negotiated when they serve to disparage those they once served.

      • NL

        Sorry, yes, just a typo, can’t edit…

        • Are we so totally absolved of our individual powers of discretion that we cannot differentiate between respectful behavior and abuse!?

  • cole

    I, personally, don’t believe Prince Charles deserves to be king. After the way be treated Princess Diana, the honor should be bestowed on the Princess’s son, Prince William.

    • Howard T

      What rubbish.

    • Toin Bach

      The woman’s been buried for 20 years why not let her die. She wasn’t a saint and the hurt was never one sided.

    • nmfd72

      Thankfully, neither you nor I get to vote on it, so toot on……………..

    • micmac

      But how did Princess Diana treat Prince Charles as well? Jealousy, especially unwarranted jealousy, is a terrible thing, both for the jealous person and the person or persons it is directed against. And need I say that hot tongue and cold shoulder aren’t the best ways to make a marriage that works? As Shakespeare said, “hell hath no fury than a woman scorned”. And from what I’ve read, Diana, who already had self- esteem problems when she married, seemed to feel scorned unless she was the centre of Prince Charles’ attentions, especially at first in their marriage. Before she married the Prince, Diana seemed to like all his interests. But once the engagement ring was on her finger, she seemed to change. And no, neither marriage partner knew enough about each other’s likes and dislikes, let alone how badly the divorce of her Spencer parents had affected Diana.

      • They were both very young and people have ideals, then they build habits that do not always reflect the ideals because of a variety of factors. Obviously the boys wish it were handled differently and in retrospect, everyone does. Diana was a perfect physical match for Charles and they looked wonderful together.

        • Mimi

          Diana was young, 21/22 – still a girl really. Charles was 32/33 – a grown man.

          • Age has some relevancy, however some people mature at a younger age than others. I would say I was ready for heavy responsibility towards others at a young age and it wasn’t there to be had. Others cannot handle responsibility their whole lives but still manage to provide properly for themselves. I was raised with traditional gender values- not to say that financial independence was an issue for women- quite the opposite as Mummy always was the breadwinner in our home. However, she did not feel the need to be the man too, like women often do these days. There were other standards when she was a girl and she raised me to be a strong parent, mother, partner. When one is a strong spouse, it helps to have someone who can meet one halfway. I married a man who was not interested in that lifestyle. He was a spy for others who wished to help themselves to my intellect without pay. It would be nice to get some support for an annulment and provisions for economic independence from him now that this has become evident.

          • Mimi

            I don’t think that women want to be men, but that’s another discussion that I’m not really in the mood for at 6 on the morning…

            I do know that some people mature faster than others but I have to say that I don’t think Diana was one of them. Not that his spoiled, entitled, and indulged self was much more mature…

          • There are women who see men as people, and others who see them as wallets with legs. Then there are those who are traumatized by men and cannot get past it. Feminism wasn’t always there to blame everything on, before that, we weren’t allowed to own property. It’s the mentality, not the principles of women’s rights that pose the problems. Some of us are responsible people who genuinely care for others- that’s not necessarily a feminine trait.

      • Irena GK

        A young wife would have soon realized that something was wrong. She soon learned that Charles had never stopped his affair with Camilla and that she herself was only used to have the royal children. This would unsettle any young woman expecting to be loved after marriage.

        • micmac

          I realise that she was at a disadvantage marrying an older man, but a young wife generally has more going for her than Diana was prepared to admit, especially one that finds herself with a much wanted pregnancy. The trouble is, Diana, who suffered from bulimia and also post natal depression, was behind the eight ball, due to her own insecurities over her own parents’ rancorous and even violent marriage break down and divorce.

  • Louise Heremia

    Prince Charles should abdicate from the throne and hand it over to Prince William.

    • nmfd72

      In your dreams maybe. That will never, ever happen!!

    • micmac

      No he should not. Prince William wouldn’t agree to it, anyway. Neither, for that matter, would Prince Harry.

  • Deb Penney

    Fantastic! A monarch is not appointed but annointed, not annointed by a politician but by a bishop, not in a government house but the Abbey. Politicians are chosen by popular vote, monarchs are born into it. This is a great article!

  • nmfd72

    almost seems like a plea?? which is totally not necessary. When Her Majesty leaves this world, Charles will automatically become King, end of story. Nothing has changed to allow otherwise and nothing will.

  • Gillian Johnson

    I have no issue with him becoming King.. it is her that should not be allowed to be Queen!! She is a home wrecker and is despised my many in this country.

    • micmac

      You may get your wish, but it remains to be seen what will happen. However, after yesterday’s events in USA, I’d say that even two divorces and three marriages should be no longer a bar to Charles becoming King, or his current wife becoming his consort, however she is called. Especially as there is such a high rate of divorces in the world, including in UK, and for all sorts of reasons. Don’t forget that Camilla’s first husband was a Catholic, was romancing Princess Anne before he suddenly married Camilla, in 1973, and that he was a bit of a philanderer, himself, during that marriage. Also, that, after he and Camilla finally divorced, in 1995, and long before Charles finally remarried in 2005, Andrew Parker Bowles went on to marry Rosemary Pitman, who died in 2010.

    • Kathleen Ames

      You mean as opposed to the saintly Diana who had six affairs and wrecked three marriages? And where was the ‘wonderful mother’ for the last three weeks of her life? Sailing the Med with the Fayeds. And where were her sons? With their father.

  • bebyee iabraham

    he will not be the king bebyee I Abraham be next king

  • micmac

    I couldn’t agree more with your article. The UK constitution has evolved to stress the preconditions for anyone to be king. Or queen. According to the Westminster system, such preconditions have long been established by Parliament, to ensure that UK has both a Head of State and a Head of Government, to ensure there would remain a “separation of the powers”. Such a system was adapted to make Germany a republic after WW1 and the abdication of the Kaiser. But when President Hindenburg died, Hitler, already the German Chancellor (their equivalent of the Prime Minister), was somehow able to seize the Presidency as well. End of separation of powers, and World War II ensued. When people want to make a constitutional monarchy into a republic, or pick and choose which king should succeed, regardless of what the constitution says, there is a great danger something similar might happen elsewhere. Especially since there are currently more than one hereditary or lifelong presidency in the world, not always happily.

  • Arielle

    what about the fact that charles is divorced….married to another divorcee and that divorcee’s husband is still alive?……..many are saying if edward his great uncle had to forfeit the crown for wishing to marry a divorcee…..then shouldnt charles also? The monarch becomes the head of the Church in England….and many concerned about the leader sending out the wrong messages…..(apologies if someones mentioned this already…havent read the other posts yet)

    • Simon Axelby

      For people and institutions that don’t recognise divorce, Prince Charles would be considered a widower when he married Camilla. If Diana had still been living, it would be different.

      As for being head of the Church of England, let’s not forget that the Anglican Church was established because a King (Henry VIII) wanted to divorce his wife. So it’s not a problem anyway.

      King Edward VIII did not have to forfeit the crown because of his wish to marry Mrs Simpson; it was his choice to go. Besides, the abdication crisis of 1936 was over 80 years ago, and attitudes about such things have changed a great deal since then.

      • Kathleen Ames

        Sorry to contradict but Edward VIII did have to go. He gave the politicians an ultimatum ‘let me marry Wallis or I abdicate’ They called his bluff. He did not want to go at all. He wanted to be a totally different type of king and not follow instructions from Parliament.

        • Simon Axelby

          King Edward did have several choices; he could have:

          1. Give up Mrs Simpson and remain on the throne,
          2. Continue seeing her but not marry her,
          3. Marry her, remain on the throne, and provoke a constitutional crisis at home and in the Commonwealth countries.
          4. Marry her, pull rank as King and allow all his ministers to resign, as they had threatened to do, and appoint a new cabinet. There are always people willing to take advantage of an opportunity to receive a powerful position such as PM.

          It was his decision to abdicate so he could marry Wallis and avoid a mass resignation of the cabinet.

          • Kathleen Ames

            You have gone into a lot of detail to tell me all the facts I already know and to confirm what I said, i.e, he did not have a choice under the terms he wanted.

          • He wasn’t of the right temperament for that sort of thing.

          • Ricky

            Completely irrelevant; the succession goes by firm rules, and is not a popularity contest to be voted on.

          • I couldn’t agree more- popularity hinges on the capacity for the general public to use a degree of informed judgment that is, evidently, sorely lacking. I was never popular, always admired, but never that. I would rather be respected than popular.

      • Irena GK

        Sorry, Edward did have to go after issuing an ultimatum.

    • Kathleen Ames

      Prince Charles was a divorcee before Diana’s death. At the time of his marriage to Camilla he was a widower. Two different things.

      • Irena GK

        He was still a divorcee. What happens to his divorced ex wife does not changer his status. He also was having an affair with a married woman and then married a divorcee. Nothing remarkable, Not a good thing for a head of a Church.

        • Kathleen Ames

          Again, you are entirely wrong Prince Charles’ legal status when he married was Widower NOT divorcee.

          • Irena GK

            Legal is one thing Right, is another.
            The two are not always the same.

          • Kathleen Ames

            No. Legal is the right thing. He was legally entitled to remarry. He wife was dead. That is the point.

        • micmac

          Yes it does change his status. If the spouse dies the spouse dies, ex or not. Long before Diana died, Camilla and her husband had also divorced, by 1995, and Camilla’s husband, Andrew Parker-Bowles had remarried Rosemary Pitman, who also died of breast cancer in 2010. Would you call Andrew Parker Bowles a divorcee or a widower?

    • micmac

      Charles is Diana’s widower since she died in 1997. Yes Andrew Parker-Bowles is still alive, but he, too, is currently a widower, since the wife he married before 1997, Rosemary Pitman, died in 2010. Currently, Camilla, whose first marriage was to a Catholic, even though she always remained Church of England, is in a civil marriage with Charles, and which is recognised by law. It might be more to your liking if Andrew Parker Bowles had also shuffled off this mortal coil, like his second wife, Rosemary, but it wouldn’t change a thing, anyway, None of us are getting any younger. In the end death releases everyone from both marriages and divorces.

  • Dliberty

    Charles is uniquely qualified to be King by the very fact that he is the longest serving heir apparent in British history. He has lived all of his life preparing for this, not to mention the past few years of the co-regency. It is as the writer implies, let the old man wear the crown and allow the young to live their lives before the burden of duty takes over.

    • Charles says he “doesn’t use lawyers, he makes deals with people”. Not sure what the meaning of this was- whether he bemoans certain circumstances he finds himself in. I, for one, would choose to follow some semblance of the law before I took justice into my own hands. Henry VIII had his wives executed because they could not divorce. We have divorce laws these days thank God. We have restraining orders and privacy, and IP laws. We have women’s rights and children’s rights. We are beginning to talk about the plight of male victims of abuse. I applaud this trend.

      It is not to our advantage to live in a society where there is complete anarchy. The reason we have laws, is to maintain some degree of civilization and respect for others, for family- elderly and young people require stability. Charles of all people cannot argue in favor of a fascist, Spartan society that encourages every bad person to help themselves to whatever they want with total disregard for our laws. He is old himself, his mother is octogenarian. His family has more to lose than anyone else in a wealth redistribution agenda, so I find it difficult to believe he is an anarchist at heart.

      All I know is when I see celebrities, Royals, neighbors other people, I do not see the minutia of their lives as a reality show. I feel a deep reverence for others’ privacy and life challenges. Not all of us are able to grasp this, but it is my feeling without question that certain rights we have evolved are vital to the maintenance of civilization. I do try to uphold the 10 Commandments although I am not a practicing Catholic. Some things make us human, is how I see it. I believe honesty helps form lasting relationships.

  • Irena GK

    I think most know that it is not about being elected, BUT, some feel that for the sake of the Monarchy, Charles might just “resign” and let William take over. Although Charles is next in line, he will not be doing the establishment any favours by ascending the throne with his divorcee wife. There may be a spate of countries leaving the Commonwealth if Charles becomes king. He put his personal l;ust before his duty. Let him enjoy the path he chose.

    • Kathleen Ames

      Charles will not abdicate. He has spent too long awaiting and learning his role and he feels his duty as deeply as his mother our Queen. Who knows? Camilla may not be a divorcee by the time the ascend the throne. If she is, it is the 21st century and we must move with the times. People do change partners.

      • Irena GK

        Changing partners is OK if you are not the head of the Church or a Commonwealth. This makes it not OK. .One future British king did abdicate when he was involved with a divorcee and not able to put his duty first, and it was not a bad thing since the result has been this very much loved queens in the slight change of succession.
        If this scenario with Charles and Camilla was not indirectly the cause of Diana’s death, then it might even be overlooked. But not with this history of his betrayal always present while she is around.

        • Kathleen Ames

          The situation with Edward VIII was entirely different. Wallis had one divorced husband and w’s married to another during her romance with the Prince of Wales. She did not divorce the second until after his Abdication.

        • Kathleen Ames

          And what about Dian’s betrayal. Six affairs and broke up three marriages into the bargain. At least Charles only had one and went back to the woman he loved and who loved him,, which is more than Diana did. All she loved was being centre of attention and changing her clothes three times a day. She was the cause of her own death. Had she not been cavorting round the Med with the Fayeds and had she worn her seatbelt instead of tormenting the paparazzi through the rear window she would be here today

        • Kathleen Ames

          PS. I suggest you take out a few docents books or newspapers and check out the Commonwealth leaders and their relationships.

        • micmac

          Head of the Commonwealth could well be some president or another in the future. Are you saying that Presidents can’t divorce and remarry? Obviously they can do as they like .

  • Chris Reid

    Well said. As a Brit living in America I well know the risks of allowing “the people” to choose.

    • Then perhaps you take for granted the degree of quietude afforded you by your lifetime of privilege, and have never lived enough stress to truly understand the meaning of immersion in unfavorable circumstances. It takes a certain degree of wisdom and empathy to be able to distinguish a person from whatever environment shapes their behavior. Especially if it is a reaction to calculated and contrived hostility. In my view, it is foolish to orchestrate such conditions around one whose company you could ultimately benefit from far greater than you might from her alienation. I am judge harshly because I do not condemn this family, and because they are distantly related to us. It seems odd that they would make sport of demeaning their own kind in an age where the Monarchy is waning in popularity.

    • Doug Ro

      And the people chose well in choosing Trump over Crooked Hillary. Perhaps the Brits should give it a go as well? Wills is younger and would make a better King.

      • legslyndy

        Not a well choice at all. Stay tuned for WW3 coming soon via Trump.

  • The common people would choose whomever could squeeze into a pair of grape-smugglers. They do not have a taste for the cerebral achievements because these are beyond their reach. It must be frustrating for them to face that they are underqualified to judge what is best for them when they have had their appetites whetted and egos massaged so vigorously by every advertizing agency on the planet who wants to pick their pockets.

    • Simon Axelby

      How nice it is that you’re so much more sophisticated and better informed than the average human.

      Thanks so much for sharing. Thanks just all to pieces.

      • It is heartening to hear some positives in a world where one’s soul life is measured by the length (or lack thereof) of one’s undergarments. Narry a risque thing left to say.

    • luigi pasquali

      I love your comments; but you seem to limit the lack of “cerebral achievements” to just common people. I would like to expand the field of non-academics to include all Royals, especially Camilla, and not just to the poor dumb slobs who don’t know what is best for them.

      • Anyone can become a “poor, dumb slob” if you crack them in the head enough times, sir.

  • Cat got your tongue?

  • Michaela Lovell

    Wonderfully put! A regal reminder that the monarchy is anointed and not appointed. Get over it people! This is one institution you can’t tweet or, vote your opinion on, which makes any difference to anyone or anything. We’re talking about royalty, not celebrities wishing they were royalty!!

    • It is not an easy topic, is it. One presumes it is the imperative of those in a higher station to establish their court and social hierarchy.

    • Would it help to define the meaning of the word and what qualities one perceives it encompassing? There is so much of this shrouding in mystery that leaves it wide open to interpretation.

      • Michaela Lovell

        Excuse me, maybe I’m missing something here, but define the meaning of which word, are you talking about? And what is the ‘this’ you refer to being ‘shrouded in mystery that leaves ‘it’ wide open to interpretation’?

        • I don’t know, Phillip. I would imagine there must be some quality, however intangible, that would allow the writer to differentiate between the varying levels of Royal qualities even within his immediate family.

  • luigi pasquali

    And we, as his people, must kiss his arse.

    • He would be several heaps poorer if I stooped to perform the duties of his royal arse kisser instead of the work I do now wouldn’t he.

  • Valerie A Wilson

    I am, as you put it, a mere royalist but I do believe in the line of succession. The trouble is the rules continually change, think of Edward and Mrs Simpson not to mention the way Princess Margaret was treated her whole adult life when she clearly was not going to come to the throne. Many people do not like the Duchess because of the relationship with Prince Charles throughout his marriage to Diana, double standards I know, and the fact that she will be known as Queen, double standards continue as a Queens husband is not known as King but it is what it is. I love our great Queen and I will always be a Royalist, mere or otherwise.

    • Camilla is definitely the more business savvy of the two rivals, which would be, perhaps, the reason she prevailed. That and the company she keeps, no doubt, who wish to promote her due to common interests.

      • Kathleen Ames

        Maybe you will have gained a little more weight when you are his age?

      • micmac

        Camilla is also pushing the three score and ten use-by date for many humans. Especially as she is 18 months older than Charles.

      • Mimi

        When they married he was in his mid 50s and now he is in his late 60s. Most people have a decline in their appearance as they approach 70.

        • It’s not about a decline so much as a sudden leap in what is evidently poor living standards. Normally we can attribute this to some traumatic event, in his case, most likely the loss of the mother of his children. It was a traumatic event whether or not they were divorced.

          • Mimi

            True, although I do stand by my statement that generally there is a marked difference in appearance between say 55 and 70 and there is usually not a lot of getting around that. Nature of aging and all.

            I do think Diana’s death and all that happened as a result of that definitely had an effect on him in a lot of ways. The video of him as they arrive with her body back from France shows the wear on his face already. Add 20 years to that…the immense negativity towards him and the royal family in the immediate aftermath, being a solo parent…even a solo parent with more resources than most of us have access to, etc.

            I like Charles. He is who he is and being who he is there are only so many ways he would have “turned out” to be as an adult. I think he’s been a good dad to “the boys” (“boys” LOL grown men now) which I commend him for. I always thought it was incredibly honorable of him to go to France to get Diana’s body even though he didn’t “have to.”

          • The whole thing was horrendous and yes, the grief and aftermath measurably stressful. Camilla perhaps not the most apt at stress management and lifestyle choices. Peer pressure is a terrible thing too- maybe harder on men than women in many cases.

          • Mimi

            I think peer pressure is hard on everyone. Most peer pressure is either gender expectations of class expectations, or both. I couldn’t imagine being born in a family like that with the immense pressure to be (whatever) and act certain ways just because of y DNA. I can imagine agreeing to marrying into it even less.

            I think Charles would have had a better life had he married Camilla to begin with. If not for a bunch of draconian rules about the expectations for the spouse of the heir…he probably could/would have, or at least brought it up to her as a possibility.

            Don’t misunderstand. I like Diana’s sons. I think they have (both) turned out to be good young men, even with Harry’s ‘wild child’ youth. Much of their world view and expectations of themselves is due to her influence in their young lives. However we will never know if I would think as highly of children that would have come from a Charles & Camilla union.

            Diana though technically a “commoner” was nevertheless the privileged daughter of an aristocrat so her ‘common touch’ was really pretty extraordinary for someone coming from that class. I doubt that any Charles & Camilla issue wold have ended up being as altruistic as Diana’s sons even though Camilla is truly “common.” I doubt that Camilla would have fought as hard to have her children understand that there were (a lof of people who didn’t live the rarified existence that they lived. I could be wrong of course but I don’t think I am.

            As an aside, even all these years later whenever I see a video of the funeral procession and they show a shot of the coffin with the letter from Harry to “Mummy,” I still lose it. So sad.

          • It is an interesting time to be Royal, for certain. There is the prestige, then this expectation that perhaps the public does not comprehend due to the history of this institution. They wait for others of this class to set an example to them, or the media, and they have no initiative because they were not brought up in it, so to speak. Diana was a Goddess- her fashion flair and presence remarkable and that wedding dress the most magnificent thing I ever saw. Truly a vision of elegance and very distinguished. However, there were problems with how she was raised and this caused the rift. Camilla is more solid- she is not so flamboyant- her style more consistent and always suited to her figure whereas Diana would sometimes deviate from what flattered her somewhat boyish figure. Diana’s boys are lovely- very well turned out despite it all and this says something for her genetic material. She obviously loved them a great deal and was somewhat misguided, maybe a little headstrong. Not a good trait for this milieu. Life can be that way and we all have family problems. The young Royals were never truly conditioned to lead and this can pose issues. Like I said it is an interesting time for those born into the fold. Being a distant relation of Elizabeth, I myself have been subject to class persecution, long before I was aware of the connection I dealt with more pressure than others I knew in school. Sometimes it is difficult to communicate with others so that they understand what I’m saying due to a difference in values. One can only keep trying to make oneself understood and pray things resolve sooner than later.

    • Kathleen Ames

      The late Prince of Wales (Edward VIII) and Mrs Simpson were a totally different scenario. Mrs Simpson had two husbands still alive, she was American. In those times a divorced person could not even be introduced to a member of the royal family let alone marry. The fact that she was American, in those times, also precluded her as the wife for a King. Thankfully the world has moved on. People are allowed to realise a mistake has been made and they can and do change partners.

      • Valerie A Wilson

        I fully understand the differences between Edward n Mrs Simpson. I also said that things have changed. I fail to see your point, but thanks for making it.

        • Kathleen Ames

          Apologies. I thought you were comparing Edward & Wallis to Charles & Diana.

          • Valerie A Wilson

            Oh no. I meant now they are accepting divorcees.

    • micmac

      Rules do change as time goes by. Charles wasn’t the only one who divorced, or who married a divorced person. These days it is becoming increasingly difficult to find someone who hasn’t divorced, when one in 3 marriages ends in divorce. He has a civil marriage with Camilla, and it has been blessed by the church. No offspring of that union are expected, and only Diana’s sons can inherit the throne.

      For Camilla to become Queen, the following has to apply: 1. She has to stay married to Charles. 2. She has to outlive Queen Elizabeth, 2. Charles, himself, has to outlive Queen Elizabeth. 3. We have to keep an eye on what Prince Philip does after Queen Elizabeth dies, that is, if he outlives her. 4. Parliament has to assent to her being Queen. 5. She has to be crowned as Queen Consort. And all this is still hypothetical.

      So far, when the time comes, it is said that Camilla is to be called Princess Consort, rather than Queen Camilla, taking the title from Prince Philip who is Prince Consort, not king.

      • Valerie A Wilson

        It has been reported that Prince Charles wants Camilla to be known as Queen not consort.
        I agree with all the rest obviously.

        • micmac

          Agree with what? It has been traditional for the wife of a king to be called a queen. Ideally Prince Charles might want the same courtesy to be extended to his present consort. He might want to end the farce where his wife, who should properly called the Princess of Wales, must defer to her predecessor, Diana, by being called the Duchess of Cornwall. But Charles is smarter than Edward VIII ever was, reads the papers, smells the breeze, and knows exactly how far to jump. Meanwhile there is a precedent for not calling the consort of a monarch anything more than the Prince Consort. Why not a Princess Consort as well? Consider how well the Duke of Edinburgh has carried out his public life in that capacity. There has even been a politician who says why be sexist? Call Catherine Princess Consort as well when her time comes, if she is still around? It might stop some of these silly womens’ magazine articles proclaiming her queen when nothing of the sort is likely to happen.

          • Valerie A Wilson

            I know all of that and said I agree with you.
            Call who Queen?

          • Ricky

            HRH Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall.

          • I never hear Camilla’s perspective on the Crown- however she certainly seems to like her crystal necklaces.

          • Kathleen Ames

            You are correct that the title, the senior title of the wife of a King is called Queen. All husbands/wives of the Monarch are consorts (small c). However, making them Queen Consort (capital letters) or in the case of Albert, Prince Consort, this becomes their Primary title and bestows a near-equal status on the consort.

        • Kathleen Ames

          Actually what was said was that Camilla MAY be known as Princess Consort (not Queen Consort). As you rightly say Charles has made it known he wants Camilla to be his Queen (based I guess on public mood a the time). The title of Queen Consort (capital initials) as it was on Prince Albert, has never been bestowed (as a separate honour) on our previous three queens as it infers higher status and would be the Primary title over and above Queen whereas the tile of consort (small c) comes after Queen. I think you know this but some don’t. Time will tell….

        • legslyndy

          In m eyes, Camilla has not nor ever will earn the right to be called Queen. I will refer to her as the King’s consort.

      • Who, pray tell, is charged with this odious task?

        • micmac

          That is for Charles, the privy council and parliament to decide and for Camilla to agree to. Don’t forget that Charles becomes king the moment Elizabeth II passes away.

          • And yet one does not wish death upon his beloved mother.

          • micmac

            Seek not for whom the bell tolls….For no man is an island. With apologies to John Donne. We all have to die and face our maker sometime.

          • And some of us live our lives with one foot in the grave because others have no shame, no remorse and not a shred of decency.

      • Ricky

        Why do “we have to keep an eye on what Prince Philip does after Queen Elizabeth dies?” If he outlives her, nothing will change for him other than where he’d live.

        • micmac

          Like King or Queen, the title of Prince Consort belongs to the husband of the ruling Queen. Prince Philip was always called a prince from the day he was born in Greece, but that does not apply in UK, especially when he elected to become a British citizen. When he married the then Princess Elizabeth, they became Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh. When Elizabeth became Queen, her own mother, the previous Queen, and also called Elizabeth, became the Queen Mother to stop confusion.

          Usually widowed Queens, like her grandmother, Queen Mary, get called dowagers which sounds horrible and I don’t see how that would apply to Prince Philip should he outlive his wife. That would be an interesting situation which has not ever happened beforehand, as previous two Prince Consorts died before their Queens. Old as he is, I’d like to see the face of anyone who dared call him “dowager”, after he finished with such a person.

          However, I don’t think it likely he could stay Prince Consort if Camilla becomes Princess Consort. It would be somewhat confusing, and he most likely would be called something else, though at his age surely he wouldn’t want to be bothered with such shenanigans. Which might mean, by all things byzantine and bureaucratic, that Camilla will then be stuck with being called Queen Consort, anyway, to stop everyone tying themselves in knots over the situation. Remember these are not just titles, like Mr and Mrs, they are job titles as well, like Judge or Doctor, in the case of a Medico.

  • Kathleen Ames

    Absolutely agree.

  • Valerie A Wilson

    I fully understand the differences with Edward n Mrs Simpson. I also said things had changed. I fail to see your point, but thanks for making it

  • Dana S. Leslie

    When Prince William becomes king, he will be William V, *not IV as indicated in the article. Is there some reason you are writing the Sailor King out of history?

    • Lesleyc

      The article was corrected a while ago.

  • pokeemintheeye

    Hi some of you facts are incorrect. The Prince of Orange is Dennis Forrest Joanne Carol Frederik Perritte, His Majesty Albrecht Durer. Hes the direct ancestor of Victoria he is Wilhelm 2 grandson Ferdinand is his Uncle. He is Head of Wurttenberg. He is the Head of Hesse-Kassel-Hohenzolern-Oldenberg. He is 38 years old raised in the west privately. He now owns France and Spain also. Sir Durer has an IQ of a staggering 144+ hes a computer systems student, an artist, a musician, a writer. He is the Heir Apparent . Do some homework.
    Thanks please correct your page

  • prince durer

    Ill the fuss over royalty.. Wikipedia is so messed up in their attempt to smother me I walked them in a loop de loop. Truth is I am heir apparent but I dont mention it out of respect for the queen. I like a private life but I no longer can stand the slander on the internet about my family. We never abdicated the throne and I am the oldest living first born son .. Hohenzollern, but thats not why all houses lead to me. I am head of 6 royal families. Dennis Christus Frederik (Germany)Carol (osteriech)Whilhem (prussia)Albrecht August Ferdinand Kassel Wantiez Paul Eichendorf(scottland) Perritte , Princly Prince of Austria, Oldenburg bradenton, charlotten , berlin, wurrtenburg, Lichtenstein, etcI ….etc..

  • Violet

    He had an affair with the minx, wasn’t she divorced, & then they marry!!! How is that allowed when the Queens sister was not allowed to marry a divorced man??!! I do not care how much time has passed, what time we are living in – it is wrong! He should not be allowed to be the next king!

  • Adriana Marcela Quintero Grija

    Prince Charles has demonstrated appealing criteria and judgement in both his private and public life. His wife is certainly not beloved, nor fit to be Queen (consort or not). The Commonwealth and the monarchy are at stake, this is not a man accepted or beloved by the people. Unfortunately, both he and William (unfortunately, as seen in a BBC interview) do not show the preparation as head of state and the leadership skills King Felipe of Spain has shown. They are spoilt and out of touch. Happy to see Prince William stepping up. But so much is at stake. Charles has committed endless blunders as Prince of Wales. There is nothing to indicate he would improve as King. For the sake of the monarchy, I hope he steps aside.

  • Anne Cunningham

    I do agree with all of this but I do wonder how he will be able to take on the position of head of the church of England as a divorcee?

    • Lesleyc

      LOL – it didn’t cause Henry VIII a problem! Precisely the reason the CoE came into being to accommodate a divorce.

  • Gut Rumbles

    Man, I hope it’s not too late to ask this but… if Edward VIII had to give up being King because of his love of, and marriage to, a divorcee, how can Charles (the Fredo of the family, btw) become King when *he’s* also married to a divorcee?

More in Blog Posts

Royal Central is the web's most popular source for the latest news and information on the British Royal Family and the Monarchies of Europe.

Subscribe via Email

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

Join 1,709 other subscribers.

Copyright © 2017 Royal Central, all rights reserved.