I have found it humorous that so many of the Diana-ites say they will never tolerate Camilla being Queen Consort and then proceed to raise a ruckous about everything HRH The Duchess does or does not do. It can be tiring keeping up with the pettiness (I think I spelled that wrong)--
Here are the facts and they are indisputable: Charles will ascend the throne. Just like his grandmother (QEQM), Great-Grandmother (Queen Mary) and his Great-great Grandmother (Queen Alexandra), Camilla will be entitled to be the Queen Consort, aka Queen Camilla. I personally fail to see the problem; Diana and Charles willingly divorced so she would never have held the title anyway; so to be up in arms and upset about this is a waste of emotion. History and tradition take precedence in this situation, not opinions.
You are correct, both technically and ethically.
I shall quickly discuss my interpretation of the ethical aspects. It is true that Diana, an innocent, full of dreams young girl, married someone older, fell in love with him but he did not reciprocate. Unfortunately, people see only this aspect of the story/saga.
People fail to recognize that Charles was caught by, and eventually gave in to, the advice of "traditionalist" palace functionaries who argued that even in the 1980s, the heir to the Throne should marry someone "pure and innocent" etc etc. He made a big mistake, but, in essence, he went along with the what-is-best-for-the-monarchy advice. He placed duty ahead of feelings, thus becoming also a victim himself.
The then Camilla Parker-Bowles should be the last party to be blamed. Their relationship existed well before he met Diana. Even if she stopped seeing or otherwise communicating with him, his feelings toward her were so deeply rooted that his marriage to Diana would have been miserable regardless. He harbored stronger feelings for an older and less attractive lady, even though his wife was the dream woman for millions a man around the world. So, definitely, lechery and sex was not his motivation. He was(is) not a lecherous man.
To conclude, Diana was
the (main) victim, the party that without (initial at least) wrongdoing sustained a devastating loss. She lost her innocence at a very young age, she was traumatized irreversibly.
However, it was
not Camilla (who was) the party responsible for Diana's devastation. In a technical sense, it was Charles's fault, but he didn't act out of selfisness either - quite on the contrary. He destroyed his married life because at some critical point in his life, he exercised bad, very bad judgement - but even this bad judgement aimed at serving the best interests of the monarchy.
Thus, it is extremely unfair to use (and abuse) Camilla as the sacrificial lamb.