Will Charles Ever Reign?

[Margrethe II]

Based on what has been written by royal biographers over the years, it was actually the Queen Mother who never forgave the Duke for abdicating the throne. The Queen was far more pragmatic and willing to put the past behind.

You are most certainly correct branchg.

"MII"

 

[Australian]

When Charles gets crowned King, what will be Camilla's role during the ceremony. She wont get crowned too will she, or wear a crown like the Queen mother did because she wont be queen. So what would be her role?

 

[branchg]

When Charles gets crowned King, what will be Camilla's role during the ceremony. She wont get crowned too will she, or wear a crown like the Queen mother did because she wont be queen. So what would be her role?

If Camilla doesn't become Queen Consort, she would have a similar role at the Coronation that Prince Philip had. She would place her coronet on her head when Charles is crowned King with all the other peers and princesses during the ceremony. As Princess Consort, she would be the first to kneel before the King to pay homage and pledge loyalty to the new Sovereign.

 

[Australian]

If Camilla doesn't become Queen Consort, she would have a similar role at the Coronation that Prince Philip had. She would place her coronet on her head when Charles is crowned King with all the other peers and princesses during the ceremony. As Princess Consort, she would be the first to kneel before the King to pay homage and pledge loyalty to the new Sovereign.

Thank you for that information branchg. I would really like to see a coronation ceremony.

 

[Warren]

And if Camilla is crowned Queen it will be done in accordance with the full pomp and magnificance befitting a Queen Consort at that most glittering of all ceremonies.
.

 

[Zonk]

Warren I totally agree. Charles is all about his wife receive her due recognition (which I don't have a problem with per se as she should). It does bother me however how he wants to push it down people's throat. If he gives it time...people will come to accept her as they have shown thus far.

 

[ysbel]

I don't think he's pushing her down people's throats. If he were she'd be taking the Princess of Wales title. They've been rather low-key since the marriage.

 

[Saragli]

I dont think he is pushing it down peoples throats at all. The media makes it seem like that though. But, he has very carefully planned Camillas entrance and it is common knowledge that she will be Queen. All that Princess Consort stuff is bologna. They are just starting slow and thanking God that Camilla has been accepted so well on. It could have been much worse.

 

[Margrethe II]

I dont think he is pushing it down peoples throats at all. The media makes it seem like that though. But, he has very carefully planned Camillas entrance and it is common knowledge that she will be Queen. All that Princess Consort stuff is bologna. They are just starting slow and thanking God that Camilla has been accepted so well on. It could have been much worse.

I dont believe Charles to has forced people to except Camilla, He has let them make their own judgement, and rightly so.

I have been a Monarchist since I could pretty muh talk, BUT, If Camilla is infact crowned Queen Consort (which is a most probable & realistic thought), I willl have no hesitation in voting for an Australian Republic. To think that once again the public was mislead to think that the Duchess of Cornwall shall be given the title Princess Consort (or as was claimed by His Royal Highnesses Household) & be totally uplifted would be once again a shun to those who really count, the people! I could most definitly handle having a Princess Consort, but Queen Camilla!!! Absolutely not!

"MII"

 

[Elspeth]

The misinformation came from the Household, not direct from the Prince or Camilla. The Household has a long history of self-serving lies and half-truths, and it isn't fair to blame the royals for this sort of clumsy propaganda unless it's known that the propaganda was instigated by the royals themselves, which we don't know in this case.

 

[Saragli]

I have always wondered how much the Royals have controll over their PR and household people. It does seem sometimes like they do not have controll. Can I ask one question and I just do not understand why people do. Why do people hate Camilla? Think about it and give me an honest answer. I do not want your answer to be that she was Charles mistress. Diana had affairs too. Also, think about it, even if Camilla was never charles mistress do u seriously think the marriage would have lasted. I want an honest answer about why people hate or highly dislike Camilla. (I dont think I am supposed to use the word hate)

 

[Charlotte1]

I have always wondered how much the Royals have controll over their PR and household people. It does seem sometimes like they do not have controll. Can I ask one question and I just do not understand why people do. Why do people hate Camilla? Think about it and give me an honest answer. I do not want your answer to be that she was Charles mistress. Diana had affairs too. Also, think about it, even if Camilla was never charles mistress do u seriously think the marriage would have lasted. I want an honest answer about why people hate or highly dislike Camilla. (I dont think I am supposed to use the word hate)

I don't have a problem at all with Camilla. My guess as to why the strong feelings about her relates to the whole 'fan' mentality. If you 'loved' Diana then naturally you would 'hate' Camilla. Each fan base supports their team and must automatically dislike the greatest rival team.

It's unlikely that Charles and Diana's marriage would have survived if there had been no Camilla. They were a total mismatch, they had no common interests, their personalities were total opposites of each other. They got married for the wrong reason, Charles- to do is duty. Diana- she wanted the fairytale, she was marrying a prince. Charles' former valet Stephen Barry published a book about his life working for Charles, what makes this book interesting is that he wrote about Charles' courtship of Diana and their honeymoon, Stephen Barry was a staff member who went along on the Britanica. This book was published in 1982 ( and originally banned in the UK, compared to what's been written since it was pretty mild) and Stephen Barry died before the marriage of Diana and Charles disintegrated so there's no 'benefit of hindsight' in what he wrote. Stephen Barry was the one who would pick up Diana for her dates with Charles, they spent very little time with each other, a handful of occasions, after Charles proposed Diana went to Australia for 2 weeks with her mother to 'think it over' before saying yes.
On the honeymoon, Diana spent most time 'below decks' with the crew who politely asked her not to bring Charles as it would mean everyone had to be on 'their best behaviour'. Charles and Diana had little time to get to know each other and develop any kind of lasting relationship or even to realise that they had so little in common they shouldn't have been married. So while Charles and Diana were initially happy their differences and lack of knowledge about each other brought the cracks to their marriage and eventually would have had them splitting up, regardless of who had an affair first. Both Charles and Diana were looking for the love which wasn't in their marriage with other people.

 

[iowabelle]

I'll probably take a few hits for this... but I think the reason so many people have disliked Camilla is cosmetic. I mean, very few of us will have the opportunity to know her, and even fewer will have had the opportunity to have known both Diana and Camilla... so we're making judgments based on what we've been told.

Those of us who are old enough remember when the Archbishop of Canterbury said "this is the stuff of which fairytales are made" and Diana became the fairytale princess. When the fairytale didn't last because the Prince had fallen out of love "whatever that means", there obviously had to be a cause (and a villainess)... Camilla.

Compare the two, Diana and Camilla. In the late 80s and into the mid 90s, who was young, photogenic and dressed to kill? Camilla always looked unkempt, unfashionable, weatherbeaten and haggard a lot of the time.

I think the unphotogenic take a lot of abuse from regular people. (To make a different comparison, why isn't Angelina Jolie taking abuse for breaking up Brad and Jen? I think it's because people find her attractive. If Angelina had been less attractive than Jennifer, the knives would be out for her.)

To some degree Camilla has become more accepted because her image has been smartened up. They've put her in better clothes and I think she's had some cosmetic work done on her skin and her teeth.

 

[Saragli]

Arent we a vain society. I know looking good is importent but to hate for not looking glamourous is not right. It is not fair for people to dislike and make life miserable for people simply because they are not gorgeous. Camilla is not ugly. She ages well and looks like a typical country english lady. People shouldnt change goverments and make lives miserble because they are average looking.

 

[Margrethe II]

The misinformation came from the Household, not direct from the Prince or Camilla. The Household has a long history of self-serving lies and half-truths, and it isn't fair to blame the royals for this sort of clumsy propaganda unless it's known that the propaganda was instigated by the royals themselves, which we don't know in this case.

Elspeth,

You shall notice that I did infact say it was His Royal Highnesses Household and not His Royal Highness directly. Yet, there has been plenty of time to address the statement if infact it was a "slip up". This cannot be denied.

And if you could kindly point out for me, where I blamed the Prince of Wales in my post that would be greatly appreciated.

The fact that I shall vote Republic if Camilla becomes Queen Consort isn't taking it out on Charles. I just believe that position to be one of great historical significance and should be reserved for those who truley deserve such magnificant & respected status.

Personally, I think Charles has many fine qualities and shall try very hard to do what is right for the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth. He has shown this over the past 8 years. I really think he shall be a warm and sincere Monarch. Hopefully with a Princess Consort by his side.


"MII"

 

[branchg]

The Household said it was "intended" that Camilla would become the Princess Consort when Charles became King. The decision rests with Parliament when the time comes because an Act would have to be passed to define Camilla's rights and dignity with the new reign and provide she will not be Queen Consort.

It is entirely possible, if not probable, that Parliament will decline to pass an Act of Exclusion and Camilla will remain Queen Consort and be crowned as such at the Coronation. In law, she is Queen automatically when Charles becomes King.

 

[branchg]

The fact that I shall vote Republic if Camilla becomes Queen Consort isn't taking it out on Charles. I just believe that position to be one of great historical significance and should be reserved for those who truley deserve such magnificant & respected status.

Personally, I think Charles has many fine qualities and shall try very hard to do what is right for the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth. He has shown this over the past 8 years. I really think he shall be a warm and sincere Monarch. Hopefully with a Princess Consort by his side."MII"

In my opinion, I see no reason why Camilla should not be Queen Consort. She is Charles' wife and is entitled to share his rank when he becomes King. The Government and the Archbishop of Canterbury approved the marriage of Charles and Camilla and either she is worthy to be his wife or she is not.

It would be a dangerous precedent for Parliament to interfere with the succession of title and rank with regard to the Sovereign and diminshes the concept of the monarchy. I believe they know this and have no intention of denying Camilla the right to be Queen Consort when the time comes.

 

[Saragli]

Why is their no respect for Camilla. She has not been in the Public officially long enough to know her full potential and traits. But, she has given up a leisurley life as the Princes Life Partner and has trapped herself in the Royal family. She has begun to take on more charities. She has shown herself to be warm, funny, and a loving lady. It seems that with time she will be a full pledged hard working Royal. She is a respectable lady and has done nothing wrong. You do not always love the right person you know. And you never said why you dislike Camilla margreth. Back up your opinions. In my opinion, Camilla has saved the monarchy from self destruction. I also think the Queen knows this and is one of the reasons she let Charles marry Camilla. First, Charles is much more relaxed and is doing a better job with Camilla as his wife. That will mean Charles will be an even better King. Second, Camilla has forced the monarchy to modernize. And that is something the monarchy needed. Camilla is a commoner with a commoners touch. If Camilla can become Queen than anyone in all the world can become Queen. If Camilla is accepted more it will be the ultimate come back for the monarchy and all roads point in that direction. The monarcy has a breath of fresh air. It is not a bunch of old style royals. Camilla is the most modern royal and in time I think will turn out to be like Queen Margareth of Denmark. Camilla is down to earth and nothing like the other royals. She will be the element that brings the monarchy into the 21st century. She is different and that is why I like her.

 

[ysbel]

The fact that I shall vote Republic if Camilla becomes Queen Consort isn't taking it out on Charles. I just believe that position to be one of great historical significance and should be reserved for those who truley deserve such magnificant & respected status.

I think then very few women would live up to that including some former Queen Consorts.

 

[Margrethe II]

ysbel,

Are you referring to British Queen Consort or Queen Consorts in general? If indeed you are referring to the English, It would be good if you could provide us with some relevant examples concerning former Queen Consorts who you believe to be unworthy of their position. I must confess that France did not have a great Queen Consort track record herself. The son of an English/French mother, I am well educated about both nations and their Monarchial systems.

I thankyou in advance.

Princejonnhy25,

The Duchess of Cornwall could never match that of Her Majesty the Queen Margrethe II and to say such a thing is a tad unfounded. First and foremost Queen Margrethe is the Monarch, Camilla shall never been Monarch. Queen Margrethe has been adored by her subjects and fellow countrymen & women all her life, we cannot say the same for Camilla and we still cannot (not to say this wont change with time). I have not held opposition to Camilla being part of the Royal family, and I am not expecting anyone to agree with me on this subject. You like Camilla , and that is your right to like her. I am less inclined to embrace her as future Queen Consort of the Commonwealth of Australia (as an Australian, it is my right),than people like yourself who are subject to completely different government institutions, Its just a matter of personal opinion and its great that we are given the opportunity to express such stances opnely.

branchg,

Then the British Parliament should have made that clear from the start!

Like I have stated. This is my opinion and by no means do I wish to offend anyone. Like you all who have expressed your opinions, I do the same and I embrace my convictions wholeheartedly.

And if its any consolation Her Royal Highness makes a wonderful Duchess, and I mean that sicnerely.

I thankyou all for your points of view sincerely. I however dont know exactly why it bothers citizens of France and the United States if Australia becomes a Republic? or at least this is how it has come across (to me). Please tell me if I am wrong. I apologise in advance if my interpretation is of ill judgement.

"MII"

God Save the Queen of Australia

 

[Elspeth]

Elspeth,

You shall notice that I did infact say it was His Royal Highnesses Household and not His Royal Highness directly. Yet, there has been plenty of time to address the statement if infact it was a "slip up". This cannot be denied.

And if you could kindly point out for me, where I blamed the Prince of Wales in my post that would be greatly appreciated.

The fact that I shall vote Republic if Camilla becomes Queen Consort isn't taking it out on Charles. I just believe that position to be one of great historical significance and should be reserved for those who truley deserve such magnificant & respected status.

Personally, I think Charles has many fine qualities and shall try very hard to do what is right for the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth. He has shown this over the past 8 years. I really think he shall be a warm and sincere Monarch. Hopefully with a Princess Consort by his side.


"MII"

You complained in your last post about misinformation and said you'd vote for a republic if Camilla became Queen. It sounds as though you were complaining about being lied to, and that as a result of the lies it wasn't appropriate for Camilla to be Queen. I was just pointing out that the misinformation very probably didn't originate with Charles and Camilla.

 

[Elspeth]

ysbel,

Are you referring to British Queen Consort or Queen Consorts in general? If indeed you are referring to the English, It would be good if you could provide us with some relevant examples concerning former Queen Consorts who you believe to be unworthy of their position.

Well, Caroline of Brunswick is one rather obvious disaster, although George IV was also not exactly blameless in the disaster that their marriage became. Elizabeth Woodville caused a great deal of trouble through her behaviour as well as through her secret marriage. Anne Boleyn caused a great deal of trouble while Queen, as did Katherine Howard. Margaret of Anjou was a source of great strife in an era where there was already enough trouble, although she also had some very good qualities. Isabelle of France (wife of Edward II) plotted to overthrow her husband (although with a husband like that, one could have a great deal of sympathy for her).

 

[Margrethe II]

Well, Caroline of Brunswick is one rather obvious disaster, although George IV was also not exactly blameless in the disaster that their marriage became. Elizabeth Woodville caused a great deal of trouble through her behaviour as well as through her secret marriage. Anne Boleyn caused a great deal of trouble while Queen, as did Katherine Howard. Margaret of Anjou was a source of great strife in an era where there was already enough trouble, although she also had some very good qualities. Isabelle of France (wife of Edward II) plotted to overthrow her husband (although with a husband like that, one could have a great deal of sympathy for her).

I was hoping for something...how shall we say, a litte more to date!!

And you said I complained. No, I just aired my own personal view (that I did not enforce upon any other member), which is something I see you also have no hesitation in doing (whether an administrator or not).

Are you saying that its ok for His Royal Highnesses Household to mislead the public, whether coming directly from the Prince or not? When Charles becomes King it is more than likely that Charles' current staff shall follow him to the corridors of Buckingham Palace and once again we shall be subject to the inadequacy of his staff.

Anne Boleyn. Let see, it was Henry's interest in Anne which happend to cool dramatically after their union and then after the birth of Princess Elizabeth and their stillborn son. What can a wife do? Especially since she is not the one who determines the sex of the child. And then during the May Day celebrations, Henry rode off and left his wife in Greenwich, in which the next day Anne found herself arrested on the grounds of adultery with her own brother and four commoners (which have now been recorded as complete fabrications of the truth). Anne was the victim of a harsh and cruel man whom thought of women as nothing more than meat, needed to fulfill his beastly desires. If anyone was unworthy of their poistion, it was surely Henry VIII and not his innocent wife. The best contribution that Monarch made to England was providing her with Englands greatest Monarch to have ever lived, Elizabeth II (and as it just so happens, was the flesh and blood of the woman he murdered).

I shall however say that as I dont wish for this exchange of personal views to become somewhat "narky", I think it in the best interests of those who have participated and the Forum, if we agree to disagree on some points. I respect and acknowledge your views whilst still maintaing my stance. And I expect nothing less from those who have joined the discussion.

I again say that I think Camilla makes the perfect Duchess.



"MII"

 

[Saragli]

I still have not heard a reason for disliking Camilla and not wanting her to be Queen. I could care less for what happens to Australia but changing goverments because of one person is not the smartest desicion. I said Camilla might become like Queen Margareth not that she is. Not monarch but personality wise. There both easy going and down to earth. I can understand if you dont care for Camilla but there is no reason for highly disliking her. I have yet to see one. O and no body needs to be special to fill the role of Queen Consort. That is part of modernising the monarchy that Camilla has forced. Now any Briton can become Queen and repersent their coutry. It is at a level playing field with the ordinary citizens. Some would say Prince Philip is not doing a great job as the Queen Regents consort. I do not think this argument is narky. I rather like it. It is civilized and productive. Hopefully it wont get nasty.

 

[Warren]

I have been a Monarchist since I could pretty muh talk, BUT, If Camilla is infact crowned Queen Consort (which is a most probable & realistic thought), I willl have no hesitation in voting for an Australian Republic. "MII"

As a fellow Australian I would respectfully suggest there is a clear distinction between individuals and the institution. An Australian Monarchist would support the constitutional monarchy with Elizabeth II as our titular Head of State represented by the Governor-General. The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia does not mention the Consort of the Sovereign. If one supports the concept of a constitutional monarchy as the preferred sytem of government, a future King's wife is of no relevance. I don't think one should abandon support for the current system you favour because of an individual who has no constitutional significance.

Who knows, as Camilla continues her transistion to full Royal duties she may well increase her level of public support and respect, and the emotional baggage can be left in the past where it belongs.
.

 

[Saragli]

I like your new icons Warren they are very nice. You made a good point with difference between the instition and individual.

 

[ysbel]

Well, Caroline of Brunswick is one rather obvious disaster, although George IV was also not exactly blameless in the disaster that their marriage became. Elizabeth Woodville caused a great deal of trouble through her behaviour as well as through her secret marriage. Anne Boleyn caused a great deal of trouble while Queen, as did Katherine Howard. Margaret of Anjou was a source of great strife in an era where there was already enough trouble, although she also had some very good qualities. Isabelle of France (wife of Edward II) plotted to overthrow her husband (although with a husband like that, one could have a great deal of sympathy for her).

Thanks Elspeth. Those were the Queens I was thinking of. I too have a great deal of sympathy for Isabelle (my username is based on an old spelling of hers) but in general I'd say that its not a good idea for a Queen Consort to overthrow the King.

MII if you want more recent examples, one would have to go to other countries. Queen Frederikke of Greece caused a lot of turmoil. I've heard she's still hated by many in Greece.

In general I would say that members here do respect different opinions; we will ask you though why you think or feel the way you do. If the conversation appears 'narky' to you (I don't even know what narky means!) it may be that you haven't yet explained why you think Camilla would make a good Princess Consort yet not Queen.

It's human nature when someone expresses an opinion to expect some reasons behind it and when the reasons don't come to keep on asking.

By the way, I highly admire Margrethe II and think she makes a great monarch but she is a Queen Regnant and the head of a different monarchy.

 

[Idriel]

She is a respectable lady and has done nothing wrong.

Well it is an opinion. She is not respectable and has done a lot of wrongs by the standards of many. The reasons for that have been lengthily debated in the press, on TV, in books and on various forums, this one included.

I still have not heard a reason for disliking Camilla.

Maybe you did not bother reading them.

You made a good point with difference between the instition and individual.

That point would be valid if we were talking about a republic. The problem is in a monarchy institution and individual are the same things: monarchs nowadays have no relevant role other than a symbolic one. The day the people stop the relate to, respect and/or love this symbol, the monarchy is dead.
Up to know, I sense that British people had accepted Camilla and part of the population actually like her very much. The thing is, I feel she is accepted as a kind of morganatic spouse (yeah, OK, she'll just be Princess Consort), when obviously she is not at all. That point, if not correctly explained to the British people might be the making of the falling (right expression?? ) of King Charles, or even of the British monarchy (see the good points Dimbledy made about the subject).

 

[Mapple]

In my opinion, I see no reason why Camilla should not be Queen Consort. She is Charles' wife and is entitled to share his rank when he becomes King. The Government and the Archbishop of Canterbury approved the marriage of Charles and Camilla and either she is worthy to be his wife or she is not.

It would be a dangerous precedent for Parliament to interfere with the succession of title and rank with regard to the Sovereign and diminshes the concept of the monarchy. I believe they know this and have no intention of denying Camilla the right to be Queen Consort when the time comes.

This is true, but, as far as I know, Charles and Camilla are not considered validly married in the eyes of the Church of England. This fact may interfere with Camilla being crowned as a Queen...

 

[tiaraprin]

I stand with you MII!! I wish I was an Australian so I could vote!! (Warren is going to be disappointed I agree with you on this!!)

I dont believe Charles to has forced people to except Camilla, He has let them make their own judgement, and rightly so.

I have been a Monarchist since I could pretty muh talk, BUT, If Camilla is infact crowned Queen Consort (which is a most probable & realistic thought), I willl have no hesitation in voting for an Australian Republic. To think that once again the public was mislead to think that the Duchess of Cornwall shall be given the title Princess Consort (or as was claimed by His Royal Highnesses Household) & be totally uplifted would be once again a shun to those who really count, the people! I could most definitly handle having a Princess Consort, but Queen Camilla!!! Absolutely not!"MII"