Camilla and The Public

[Pranter]

Why ? Are second marriages somehow less in your mind than first marriages ? Do you find calling the second wives [of your acquaintance] 'Mrs' whatever the name is, a problem ? Do you consider that to be in 'poor taste' ?

If they were the future defender of the Faith and head of the Church of England and in the same circumstance of Charles and Camilla...yes.


LaRae

 

[Ish]

If they were the future defender of the Faith and head of the Church of England and in the same circumstance of Charles and Camilla...yes.





LaRae

*coughHenryVIIIcough*

*coughthechurchwasformedbecauseamanwantedadivorcecough*

*coughtherehavebeennofewerthantwoRomanCatholicswhoheldthispositioncough*

*coughandMANYmenwhohadmistressescough*

*coughincludingtheguywhosefirstdivorcebroughtthechurchintoexistencecough*

 

[Pranter]

*coughHenryVIIIcough*

*coughthechurchwasformedbecauseamanwantedadivorcecough*

*coughtherehavebeennofewerthantwoRomanCatholicswhoheldthispositioncough*

*coughandMANYmenwhohadmistressescough*

*coughincludingtheguywhosefirstdivorcebroughtthechurchintoexistencecough*

Yes I'm well aware of history...aren't they supposed to have improved over the past several hundred years? Unless you are saying Charles isn't so bad because he hasn't killed two of his wives so far?


LaRae

 

[Lady Nimue]

Looks like you have to choose the right interpretation of a poll. This one says Camilla is fine in the polls, but another paper using the same poll results asserts the opposite. Can't be both ways. Might there be some 'cookin' of the polls'?

LINK: Camilla Parker Bowles’ Title As ‘Queen Consort’ When Prince Charles Becomes King Is Fine With Most Brits

 

[Ish]

Yes I'm well aware of history...aren't they supposed to have improved over the past several hundred years? Unless you are saying Charles isn't so bad because he hasn't killed two of his wives so far?


LaRae

The point that you seem to fail to get, though is that there is no moral requirement for the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. There is ABSOLUTELY NO MORAL REQUIREMENT. There isn't even much of a religious one for that matter.

In order to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England you have to be the king or queen of the United Kingdom. That's it. In order to be the the king or queen of the United Kingdom you have to be the senior most legitimate descendant of Sophia of Hanover and not a Catholic.

That means that in order to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England you don't have to be a moral, upstanding person. You don't even have to be an Anglican. You just have to have the right bloodline and not be a Catholic. Charles could convert to Islam tomorrow and would still be eligible to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith.

As for this morallity of monarchs since Henry VIII... actually, yes things have progressed since then and Charles being divorced is actually a sign of that. First of all, Charles' reasons for divorce were actually considerably more founded than Henry's - Charles' marriage dissolved because he and his wife were not compatible and really didn't love each other so he and his wife separated. It wasn't done because his wife failed to produce a male heir, or because she had affairs (which she did). His one affair wasn't dismissed as completely acceptable while hers were a crime. Charles' divorce affected him and his wife, not the whole realm because he didn't have the authority (or need) to change everyone's religion just to get a divorce. He didn't need to make up a reason to divorce his wife, nor did he get to send his wife into exile, or prison, or execute her. He also didn't make it so that his wife could never be with anyone else.

What's more is that we as a society largely don't believe that a couple should be condemned simply because they were married previously or because they were unable to make that first marriage work. It's hard to do when you consider that 50% of marriages end in divorce and in the Charles/Diana and Camilla/Andrew marriages everyone committed adultery.

 

[Pranter]

I'm aware that there is no requirement to be moral or even religious.

No one is talking about anyone needing to be condemned and just because 50 percent of marriages end in divorce doesn't mean it's ok. Just because one person commits adultery doesn't mean it's ok.

What is the point of the farce then...if one doesn't even has to be moral or even part of the CoE why bother to begin with. It doesn't mean anything and before long neither will the monarchy.


LaRae

 

[Iluvbertie]

The point that you seem to fail to get, though is that there is no moral requirement for the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. There is ABSOLUTELY NO MORAL REQUIREMENT. There isn't even much of a religious one for that matter.

Totally agree. Many of the monarchs who have been Supreme Governor of the Church of England have been far from 'moral and upright' people - e.g. Charles II and his many mistresses, James I and VI who was probably a bit both ways, George IV and Edward VII all come to mind and amazingly they were all quite decent monarchs and Supreme Governors.

In order to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England you have to be the king or queen of the United Kingdom. That's it. In order to be the the king or queen of the United Kingdom you have to be the senior most legitimate descendant of Sophia of Hanover and not a Catholic.

Totally true

That means that in order to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England you don't have to be a moral, upstanding person. You don't even have to be an Anglican. You just have to have the right bloodline and not be a Catholic. Charles could convert to Islam tomorrow and would still be eligible to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith.

NO to the bolded bit. You have to be a communicant member of the Anglican Church. This is spelt out in the Act of Settlement. Lutherans were regarded as being 'in communion' with the CoE so didn't need to change denominations but the monarch must be a communicant member of the CoE. If Charles converted to Islam he would lose his place immediately as he would no longer be in communion with the CoE - he could convert to a range of protestant denominations and even Orthodox but he does have to be a non-Roman Catholic Christian.

As for this morallity of monarchs since Henry VIII... actually, yes things have progressed since then and Charles being divorced is actually a sign of that. First of all, Charles' reasons for divorce were actually considerably more founded than Henry's - Charles' marriage dissolved because he and his wife were not compatible and really didn't love each other so he and his wife separated. It wasn't done because his wife failed to produce a male heir, or because she had affairs (which she did). His one affair wasn't dismissed as completely acceptable while hers were a crime. Charles' divorce affected him and his wife, not the whole realm because he didn't have the authority (or need) to change everyone's religion just to get a divorce. He didn't need to make up a reason to divorce his wife, nor did he get to send his wife into exile, or prison, or execute her. He also didn't make it so that his wife could never be with anyone else.

Earlier wives committing the crime Diana committed in having affairs were executed or locked away. She was simply divorced. We have progressed.

What's more is that we as a society largely don't believe that a couple should be condemned simply because they were married previously or because they were unable to make that first marriage work. It's hard to do when you consider that 50% of marriages end in divorce and in the Charles/Diana and Camilla/Andrew marriages everyone committed adultery.

Sadly though the Diana fans only see this situation through their rose coloured glasses when it comes to Diana and Charles and Camilla will have to be condemned for ever as a result.

 

[Osipi]

One thing I have to believe is that should Charles' first marriage have taken place with them being an ordinary couple, they would have wasted no time in heading to divorce court. By the time things got really bad, they were both living separate lives in separate residences. It is at this point that both in the marriage are perhaps at their lowest and really need their close friends and family to support them.

Scandal wields a very black paintbrush and the portrait it paints never entirely goes away but we also have to remember that we're all outsiders looking in on the private lives of people being given very few insights from the actual people involved.

If people look at the here and now and how much happier of a person Charles has appeared to be since his marriage to Camilla, its not a far stretch of the imagination to realize that perhaps it was Camilla's close friendship, loyalty and support that enabled Charles to keep more on an even keel while all around him, things were falling apart. Slowly but surely by her actions and her interactions with the public, those that she meets come to believe that Camilla is a very warm, down to earth woman and there is much more to her than the public portrait that was painted of her many years ago.

 

[Nice Nofret]

I'm aware that there is no requirement to be moral or even religious.

No one is talking about anyone needing to be condemned and just because 50 percent of marriages end in divorce doesn't mean it's ok. Just because one person commits adultery doesn't mean it's ok.

What is the point of the farce then...if one doesn't even has to be moral or even part of the CoE why bother to begin with. It doesn't mean anything and before long neither will the monarchy.


LaRae

Why is it not ok if people divorce? Even Muslims and Jews are allowed to divorce , even Roman Catholiks are allowed to divorce. Why do you think YOUR interpretation of what Christian believe is, is the only valid one? I can't see in anything Christ ever said, that he was against divorce... In the 10 commentmens is no mentioning of not divorcing

Why is it, that so many people are so obsessed with what other people do in bed? Why should it be, that the sexlive of consenting adults should be more important than anything else they do in life?

If people decide to have an open marriage - it is there choice und I'm ok with that ... it is not a concerne of mine.

And afaik in the whole western world state and religion are seperate from each other! So beeing the head of state has nothing to do with 'christian morals' at all; You just have to play by the legal rules of your country. And adultery is NOT a crime - even if it goes against your religious believes.

 

[Jacknch]

It is time to move back on topic - this thread is about Camilla and the Public, not the moral or religious issues surrounding her husband's marriage, divorce or eligibility in becoming head of the Church of England. There are various other threads in which these things can be discussed.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

JAN MOIR: We could do a lot worse than Camillia as our Queen | Daily Mail Online

 

[Roslyn]

I'm not surprised to see such an article. The author has merely articulated the thousand words that picture speaks.

 

[Dman]

'Camilla can't be Queen' say nearly half of Cheltenham audience to royal reporter Nicholas Witchell | Gloucestershire Live

 

[Cris M]

What a load of rubbish. "She can't be Queen." Too bad she'll be Queen the moment her husband becomes King.

 

[cepe]

'Camilla can't be Queen' say nearly half of Cheltenham audience to royal reporter Nicholas Witchell | Gloucestershire Live

I looked into this. This happened at the Cheltenham Literature Festival when the author A N Wilson was giving a talk.

NIcholas Witchall, BBc royal reporter (the one Prince Charles notably said he didnt like) took a 'straw poll'. This could have been either for fun or for mischief. But the outcome was that the majority said that she should be Queen.

BBC/Witchell did not get the result they prob wanted. Foolish for it to become news.

 

[Curryong]

The article did point out that it was just a 'straw poll' though, in fairness. Even though Camilla has improved since her marriage in more serious polling conducted by legitimate companies, there's still a broad section of Britons that don't care for her very much. She's still at the back of the pack when people are asked to rate their favourites in the royal family.

 

[Dee Anna]

JAN MOIR: We could do a lot worse than Camillia as our Queen | Daily Mail Online

In answer to the follow on remarks, there is a lovely photograph of Charles and Diana both wearing very casual pale blue shirts, she's behind him, her arms round his shoulders and both looking probably every bit as happy as this.

It didn't work out and regardless of the endless speculation as to should it ever have happened makes no difference to the fact that yes they were that happy couple once.

 

[Osipi]

I like how Jan Moir writes and this article is no exception.

 

[Hans-Rickard]

It would look very strange and completely wrong if Camilla won't be crowned Queen when Charles is crowned King.

The King and The Queen is the way it should be.

The King and The Princess Consort sounds wrong and more like father and daughter than husband and wife.

(Just my opinions)

 

[Lady Nimue]

'Camilla can't be Queen' say nearly half of Cheltenham audience to royal reporter Nicholas Witchell | Gloucestershire Live

I looked into this. This happened at the Cheltenham Literature Festival when the author A N Wilson was giving a talk.

NIcholas Witchall, BBc royal reporter (the one Prince Charles notably said he didnt like) took a 'straw poll'. This could have been either for fun or for mischief. But the outcome was that the majority said that she should be Queen.

BBC/Witchell did not get the result they prob wanted. Foolish for it to become news.

Thank you for looking into this, cepe. Interesting what they did. The result was that the majority said that she should be Queen. So they flipped it to 'nearly half' said no - which is not the majority so is accurate but creates the immediate opposing impression. Clear indication that the reporting in this is biased. Why are they so keen to stoke that fire?

 

[Curryong]

Thank you for looking into this, cepe. Interesting what they did. The result was that the majority said that she should be Queen. So they flipped it to 'nearly half' said no - which is not the majority so is accurate but creates the immediate opposing impression. Clear indication that the reporting in this is biased. Why are they so keen to stoke that fire?

Why are reporters at the DM and other tabloids so keen to stoke that fire? IMO because it's clickbait and they know that Camilla isn't a favourite of the British public.

In every poll that has come out in the past ten years that has gone into the popularity of individual members of the royal family, some conducted by newspapers, others by reputable firms like YouGov, Camilla is at the back of the pack. Time after time the Queen and William, Kate and Harry are pronounced the favourites of the BRF by the public.

Yes, Charles has dragged his popularity up from the abysmal figures of the late 1990's and there has been a similar rise in Camilla's popularity. However, it is nothing to what you would suppose it should be for a hard working and committed heir to the throne and his wife.

For Camilla there will always be the shadow of Diana looking over her shoulder. People will say 'Well, people 30 years and younger don't remember Diana.' That's true, they don't. However, most young Britons also have mothers, fathers, aunts, grandmothers, who do remember and talk about her on occasions, the sort of thing that sticks in people's memories. That baggage of Camilla's interference in her second husband's first marriage will always be there IMO. Charles's spin doctors have tried to re-write history since the couple's marriage, and I believe they've failed.

If I'm wrong, why isn't Camilla up there near the Queen in terms of popularity as you would think her status and charity work since her marriage demands? Why is a committed heir to the throne with a huge portfolio of great work for the country behind him lagging in popularity behind his sons and daughter in law, as he once lagged in popularity behind his first wife?

People can dismiss polls but really in democracies they are the only thing we have to go on to get some idea of what the population of a country think. The result of one poll can be an abberation. One after another, after years of PR from Clarence House? Not a chance!

 

[Dee Anna]

We can twitter on here as much as we like!

If William and Harry are happy with Camillia, the general public have no say in the matter! Marriage happened, end of.

When Charles becomes King, I expect Camilla will become Queen, dispite the "Princess Consort" suggetions of a decade ago.

 

[Lee-Z]

Imo the popularity of Camilla depends very much on whether a person views Camilla for her actions and representations since she became DoC or whether a person sees her as the woman who made Diana unhappy.

Diana's shadow is very long among some

Personally i get the feeling that Camilla isn't looking for the limelight at all and she wouldn't care if she never got in the position to possibly be the queen, but she also doesn't want to rock the boat and try to change tradition.

 

[Dman]

Why are reporters at the DM and other tabloids so keen to stoke that fire? IMO because it's clickbait and they know that Camilla isn't a favourite of the British public.

In every poll that has come out in the past ten years that has gone into the popularity of individual members of the royal family, some conducted by newspapers, others by reputable firms like YouGov, Camilla is at the back of the pack. Time after time the Queen and William, Kate and Harry are pronounced the favourites of the BRF by the public.

Yes, Charles has dragged his popularity up from the abysmal figures of the late 1990's and there has been a similar rise in Camilla's popularity. However, it is nothing to what you would suppose it should be for a hard working and committed heir to the throne and his wife.

For Camilla there will always be the shadow of Diana looking over her shoulder. People will say 'Well, people 30 years and younger don't remember Diana.' That's true, they don't. However, most young Britons also have mothers, fathers, aunts, grandmothers, who do remember and talk about her on occasions, the sort of thing that sticks in people's memories. That baggage of Camilla's interference in her second husband's first marriage will always be there IMO. Charles's spin doctors have tried to re-write history since the couple's marriage, and I believe they've failed.

If I'm wrong, why isn't Camilla up there near the Queen in terms of popularity as you would think her status and charity work since her marriage demands? Why is a committed heir to the throne with a huge portfolio of great work for the country behind him lagging in popularity behind his sons and daughter in law, as he once lagged in popularity behind his first wife?

People can dismiss polls but really in democracies they are the only thing we have to go on to get some idea of what the population of a country think. The result of one poll can be an abberation. One after another, after years of PR from Clarence House? Not a chance!

Camilla will never be on the same level of popularity as The Queen. That's just reality.

 

[AdmirerUS]

Camilla will never be on the same level of popularity as The Queen. That's just reality.

JMO, but I think Camilla knows this and is not so sold, herself on the idea of being called Queen.
I think Camilla a very astute person, socially. And I mean that in a nice way, so no sniggering. She has been able to effect a change in the POW that I could not have imagined possible back in the 90s. She seems to get along with everyone from Phillip to Kate to Harry, for heaven's sake!
And I think the choices she has made in her married life say a lot about the terms under which she decided to take up the marriage.
She sometimes vacations with others, escapes to her own home to see her own family, does very little to seek the spotlight. She and the Prince seem to have a very mature (again - I mean that as a good thing, no sniggering) marriage where they are there for one another and enjoy one another but not to the exclusion of friends and family. She has made no move to dominate the royal court. Heck she was several years into her marriage before she started to let someone take care of her shoes; until then, she was regularly seen with scraped heel backs!
All that shows me a woman who is not grasping at the role of Queen. Excepting her penchant for wearing big hats at momentous day events and huge royal jewels to evening events, we rarely see her "looking regal." Indeed, she shows us a steady, supportive family member that loves to read books to the kiddies and stand a few feet back of her husband. That's when she's not gently getting him to dance or lift the odd pint at an appearance.
I'm not sure she wants to be "Queen" much less be the next to use that title, which will be a tough act. I think she knows that. I'm not at all sure that the choice has entirely to do with the public. JMO
And in full disclosure, I was a Camilla hater for a long time, until I started judging her by her actions today.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Camilla will never be on the same level of popularity as The Queen. That's just reality.

That is the wrong comparison. She should be compared to the Duke of Edinburgh, her predecessor as Consort, not to the Queen.

 

[Skippyboo]

Camilla isn't following in the Queen's footsteps. She is following Philip's as a consort. Just like we see with First Ladies, the Consort can serve their spouse how she or he see fit. Eleanor was different from Jackie, Hillary different from Laura. The same true is true for Philip and Elizabeth, Mary and Alexandra.

She doesn't have to go on every tour or do everything her husband does. If she wants to read to kids she can or vacation with her sister she can.

She doesn't have to go around with a crown on her head "looking regal". What she does now isn't going to drastically change when Charles is King. Attend a state dinner, wear a tiara, go on tours- all things she is already doing. Other than a coronation at the Abbey for a day, the only difference between Queen and where she is now is Your Majesty versus Your Royal Highness. She already made a more difficult from private citizen to member of the royal family.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

There are all chances that Camilla will reach the same level of affection and popularity, as the Nation's granny. We have no idea. In the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and in the Vatican there are new monarchs and new consorts. It is surprising how quick the old guard seems "forgotten": Beatrix, Albert II and Paola, Juan Carlos and Sofía, Benedictus XVI... all still around, all part of history.

It already feels "natural" to see the new monarchs and their consorts. All of them enjoy popularity, bigger than in their days as heirs. It is impossible to tell if the British will like King Charles and Queen Camilla. I think there is every chance that they will like them indeed.

No one of us has a crystal ball but I think when the Nation rallies around the King whom leads the mourning and then so many accents will change at the Court, the King and Queen are able to become dear to the Britons. Who knows. Since Victoria all Kings and Queens enjoyed popularity. Their Consorts likewise. Even Edward VIII enjoyed huge popularity until the abdication. We will see.

 

[Skippyboo]

The Queen herself was stuck in between her popular mother and her popular children. She didn't really become the nation's granny until her own mother passed. I remember a documentary about the royals how Britain loves a old monarch and a young monarch to paraphrase.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Osipi]

I firmly believe that when it comes down to popularity polls and who the public likes or dislikes, Camilla could care less. I have yet to see, in the 10 years Charles and Camilla have been married, any kind of indication that Camilla is out for the greater good of Camilla. Its just not her nature.

What is important to Camilla is Charles, his role as The Prince of Wales and his family and how their "Firm" operates. She is by no means a puppet but a warm, down to earth person with a good sense of humor and people find it easy to get along with her. She does what she can and what is expected of her. She also has been able to bring into focus several issues that matter to her personally yet goes about it quietly in her own way and pace without any fanfare. She may have married Charles in 2005 and jumped into the world of the royal fishbowl but has never let that interfere with that which has come before and we've recently seen Camilla with her children and her ex-husband as a support team.

What it all boils down to for me is that with Camilla, I see more of a "team" player than someone out for their own fame and glory. Who matters to Camilla will not be fleeting or shallow but long lasting and from my understanding, no matter what happens, there's always a bit of humor to be found in things if one really looks for it. But most of all, no matter Camilla is addressed as when Charles is king, with Camilla it will be her choice to focus on the "consort" part.