Camilla and The Public

[Lee-Z]

Small article in dutch mag Prive "Camilla is now getting recognition"
Camilla krijgt nu wel erkenning|Prive| Telegraaf.nl

google translated

 

[Skippyboo]

Its not a question of what title she will have, she will be Queen unless Charles or Parliament actively sign a new law/act/LP denying it to her. Her popularity has turned around enough that I don't think even Parliament would feel comfortable doing that.



As for what title she will be known, well thats a different matter. I suspect they will say she can be known by either Queen or Princess Consort and slowly use Queen officially.

Well you just can't use Princess Consort because it doesn't exist. The King has to create it

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Is this thread about Camilla's future titles/styles?

Back to the Camilla and the public part: (at least for me)

I wonder if some of the Diana fans are living on the same planet like the rest of us....
Comparing the popularity of a beloved, iconic Head of State who is the reason the UK still is a monarchy with a former wife of the heir who damaget it as alomost now other in modern times.

So here I go aagain: (longer than usual)

Camilla: Are the commentators who now call her popular (even loved) right? No, they are not.

She is still unliked by many, but everyone who meets her, yes, they like her.

Will she be popular? No.

Will she be beloved? No.

Will she be respected by a majority in the UK? Not sure, but I think she will be accepted.

Does she need to be all those thing stated above to be a good consort? No, she don't.

Philip: Is philip a good consort? Yes.

Do I or the UK majority like Philip? No.

Is he popular, beloved? No.

Is he respected by a majority?

When he was young? Yes. In the 80s/90s and 2000s? No. Now? Maybe, but thats becaause he is old.

I know that this thread is for Camilla, but since the popularity of other royals has been discussed her (and I thinks it fits here), then let's go through the whole bunch of them:

Charles: Accepted, but still controversial.

Around 70% approval ratings and 60% thinks he's going to be a good king? Not bad for a man who has received so much criticism. And he is actually wery good at conecting with people - have you seen him on a walkabouts.

Is he going to be popular/beloved and admirred like his mother? No way, but I think/hope that he vill be respected.

William: 2010-2013 - Very popular, more than Diana and even more than what Harry is now - why? Because he wasn't criticized by the press.

Now - Criticized, but popular/liked with approval ratings at 75 to 80%.

When he is monarch: Likely to be quite popular, but not beloved as HM.

Kate: 2010-2013 - Very popular - why? Because she was almost not criticized by the press.

Now - Criticized, but still popular/liked by a UK majority.

Harry: Very popular (but not beloved) - why? Charismatic and good with people, but mostly because he has hardly been criticized in recent years.

Diana: Very popular in the 80's and right after the separation in 1992, but not beloved (Camilla had also been that if she had been the one to marry him at that time.)

Before she died? Controversial.

Now? Adored by her fans, not liked by people who is the opposite of her fans and the others (the majority) don't care.

The Queen Mother: Very popular and admirrred for the things she did during the war and her commitment to duty, but I wont call her beloved (I'm personally not a big fan of her)

Now? People know who she was, but (as with Diana) the majority don't care much about her. The same thing that happens to everyone who have been dead for awhile (with exception of historical persons as heads of states or heads of governments).

HM, The Queen: She is (as commentators/experts says) the most beloved, popular, iconic, famous and most successful head of state (many would say person) in the world.

Almost everyone I know in the UK likes her and almost all the comments on The Royal Family, the British Monarchist League and the British Monarchist Society & Foundation facebook pages are positive.

Even many of the ignorant and evil minded thugs in the DF comment section (the best rated comments) and on twitter likes her.

Her Ipsos MORI approval ratings were above 70% from 1992 to 2000 (with the exception of 66% in 1998, but above 70% after Dianas death in 1997), over 80% from 2002 to 2016 (sometimes 90%) just 5% dissatisfied in 2016, a YouGov approval rating in 2012 showed 86%.

And let's go through the YouGov most admired person in the UK poll:

2014 - The 30 most admired persons in the UK:
1: The Queen with 18,74%
9: William with 2,6%
19: Kate with 0,80%
Harry was not even included in the poll.

2015 - The 15 most admired Women in the UK:
1: The Queen with 17%
5: Kate with 5,2%

2015 - The 15 most admired Men in the UK:
5: William with 6,5%
8: Harry with 5,9%

2016 - The 30 most admired Women in the UK:
1: The Queen with 19,5%
7: Kate with 3,6%

2016 - The 30 most admired Men in the UK:
4: Harry with 6,4%
6: William with 5,6%

The Queen was also polled the most admirred woman in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Germany in the 2016 poll.

The unserious/stupid favourite royal polls are meaningless, but let us go through them:

The Queen came first (over both the Queen Mother and Diana) in almost all of the few polls that were made in the 80/90s.

From 2002 to 2010, the Queen came first in almost all of the few polls that were made.

The Queen has (since 2011) shared the first place with William, Kate and Harry. But as you see in polls when you ask, who is the most popular/admired person in the UK, then she beats all of them.

8 points about the Queen:

1. QEII is the reigning monarch of 16 countries - including the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. She is head of the Commonwealth and is in that capacity figurehead for 2 billion people. She has reigned for 65 years. This makes her the world's most Iconic, famous and well-known head of state (many will say person).

2. She traveled around the UK until she was 86. She used to be driven along the crowds in the Queenmobile (open car) from 1952 to 2012 (did it in 2016 on the occasion of her 90th birthday). Went on several walkabout (walked through the crowds with her smile) from 1970 to 2013. (did it in 2016 on the occasion of 90th birthday). She traveled around the Commonwealth/world from 1952 to 2011 (Italy, France Germany and Malta in 2014/2015). She is known for her kindness and there are so many touching stories about her. She comforts her employees, traumatized aid workers etc.

3. Our beloved, iconic, remarkable Elizabeth II is the UK and the Commonwealth and she is as Obama said (last year) a jewel to the world.

4. She is an international icon and the embodiment of royalty. She has dedicated her life to the UK and the Commonwealth, and have spent the last 63 years building relations and friendship between nations as no other. She's was known as the world's top diplomat until at least 2011 (when she almost stopped traveling) She was also with her parents, sister and Winston Churchill a symbol of peace during World War II.

5. She is as several of the so-called experts said on British/American/Canadian television during her 90th birthday celebrations and Jubilee celebrations in 2012 a symbol of continuity and goodness in the world. And as Baroness Scotland said during an interview: She is kind, caring, warm, forgiving and concerned with poor people, young people and people who are struggling. Monarchs, Presidents, former Prime Ministers, former employees and family member have said the same and the Queen herself has mentioned many of these topics several times in her speeches over the years.

6. She is simply THE QUEEN and world leders around the world admirer her, and she make me proud to be half-British. We should be proud to live in this admirable lady's reign.

7. There will be no one like her again, and I agree with Tony Parsons that she will be the last monarch who will be a truly unifying force in our nation, but the monarchy will continue to endure in to future with Charles, William and George (if they don't does stupid things).

8. I'm not a person who brags unconditionally of people, but when it comes to this lady, then I don't keep anything back.

And as David Walliams said it, she is the heart and soul of UK (and as others have said) to the rest of the world too.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I simply can't imagine a world without Elizabeth II, our beloved history-making monarch with her record breaking reign.

And I agree with what some commentators said in 2012/2016, she truly is Elizabeth the Great and has defined the Second Elizabethan Age.

 

[tommy100]

The fact as time goes on fewer and fewer people see a reason to dislike Camilla for her involvement with Charles.

People of my generation (20-30year olds) don't remember Diana and they see a women in her 70s who does public duties from time to time.

As Royal Norway says, will she be beloved and popular? No necessarily. But equally I don't think she'll be vilified or disliked.

IMO most people in the UK are by default neutral about members of the RF so its how the media present them thats forms opinion. Look at how Anne went from young beautiful daughter of the sovereign to cranky cold royal and now is widely credited by the media as being 'hardworking and respected' . Over the past 60 odd years has the British public massively changed their position and opinion about her? No. Most people in the UK don't particularly care about the RF and don't think about them apart from when asked or confronted by them (jubilee's, weddings etc) so they follow the opinion of the newspapers and media.Camilla's coverage in the media has got better and better as its become less acceptable to simply go on about her involvement in the War of the Wales'.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

The fact as time goes on fewer and fewer people see a reason to dislike Camilla for her involvement with Charles.

People of my generation (20-30year olds) don't remember Diana and they see a women in her 70s who does public duties from time to time.

As Royal Norway says, will she be beloved and popular? No necessarily. But equally I don't think she'll be vilified or disliked.

IMO most people in the UK are by default neutral about members of the RF so its how the media present them thats forms opinion. Look at how Anne went from young beautiful daughter of the sovereign to cranky cold royal and now is widely credited by the media as being 'hardworking and respected' . Over the past 60 odd years has the British public massively changed their position and opinion about her? No. Most people in the UK don't particularly care about the RF and don't think about them apart from when asked or confronted by them (jubilee's, weddings etc) so they follow the opinion of the newspapers and media.Camilla's coverage in the media has got better and better as its become less acceptable to simply go on about her involvement in the War of the Wales'.

Agree with this two points and the rest of your post.

 

[duchessrachel]

Nothing so formal is required.. Just 'When my Step-Mother is Queen' will do, dropped into a conversation overheard by journalists...

Something like that is what I meant.

 

[Leopoldine]

I'm sure that's correct.. Charles tho' IS likely to have a problem with the demotion of his wife, into something, somehow 'lesser'..
WHO would want that for their beloved ?

I quite agree. I believe Charles will see to it that Camilla is titled as a queen.

I saw a brief snippet of an interview with her on TV last year. She's very personable and engaging.

 

[ladongas]

Hm...

...could settle the title issue with a one line statement. "When I am no longer your Queen, I would wish that my beloved daughter-in-law would be known as Queen Consort." If she expressed that- assuming that Charles and his sons agreed- the matter would be settled. Surely no one would argue with HM.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

That is never ever going to happen! And can you imagine the headlines: (especially if the polls shows otherwise) The people don't agree with the Queen etc.

 

[Mermaid1962]

We "never" thought that the Waleses would divorce either. I agree with you though, that it's highly unlikely that HM would ever make any sort of statement about Camilla's future status. What title Camilla will use is a matter between her, the Prince of Wales, and the government. Legally, she will be Queen Camilla. We'll know what the title will be when the time comes. If she has the title of Queen, it means that she'll have to go on all the foreign tours and be much more active generally than she is now. Her stamina isn't what the Prince of Wales' is, and she seems to crave time at her own house. That's why I think she'll want to be known by a lesser title.

 

[ladongas]

That is never ever going to happen! And can you imagine the headlines: (especially if the polls shows otherwise) The people don't agree with the Queen etc.

Well, wouldn't the headlines and the polls be similar when/if Charles makes the same statement?

I'd gladly take flack for my son if it would simplify his life in the future. I expect HM could weather a few bits of controversy... Or will it be, "Apres moi, le deluge"?

 

[Denville]

Does anyone here actually think she won't be Queen? Now as to what she is called that can be a different matter...but legally yes Queen.


LaRae

No, I think she will be legally queen (because she is C's wife) and she will have the title and be crowned.

 

[Nico]

At the end Camilla's biggest legacy will be her role as Duchess of Cornwall, like Charles as Prince of Wales. Let's face it, his reign will be short and maybe, just maybe he will be, at the end, alone at Westminster abbey.
It's a terrible thought for some, a wishful thinking for others, but it's totally plausible that the Queen outlives Camilla, considering the health of these two ladies.
With the Queen at 92 and Camilla at 70, we are entering a decisive decade. That's why Camilla's moto is "carpe diem", enjoying every days and every moments.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Even when the reign of the new King will only last a decade, that is more than the maximal term for a president of the USA. So it is maybe short in royal comparisons, it is long compared to elected heads of state. Short reigns can go deep. Look at the present Pope. Just 4 years and boy, the old man has changed a whole institution. The new King can have a same effect.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

1. As I have told you before, you can't compare the british or other constitutional monarchies with the papacy.

2. The Papacy has real power over the Roman Catholic Church (with its more than 1 billion members) and has absolute power in the Vatican.

3. Pope Francis is a controversial church leader who took over from an even more controversial church leader.

4. The british monarch is (today) the apolitical head of state of 16 countries and head of the Commonwealth, in that capacity the figurehead of two billion people.

5. Charles will be (I think) a good constitusonal monarch and will not interfere in politics (if he does, he would be stupid, and he's not) and unlike Francis who took over from Benedict XVI, Charles is going to take over after the most beloved, popular, iconic, famous and most successful head of state (many would say person) in the world. And therefor, I don't think there will be too much changes under King Charles.

 

[rominet09]

At the end Camilla's biggest legacy will be her role as Duchess of Cornwall, like Charles as Prince of Wales. Let's face it, his reign will be short and maybe, just maybe he will be, at the end, alone at Westminster abbey.
It's a terrible thought for some, a wishful thinking for others, but it's totally plausible that the Queen outlives Camilla, considering the health of these two ladies.
With the Queen at 92 and Camilla at 70, we are entering a decisive decade. That's why Camilla's moto is "carpe diem", enjoying every days and every moments.

In fact everybody should do that....it only takes to have had one accidental death in the family to know that everything can stop in a second.....

 

[Ish]

Even when the reign of the new King will only last a decade, <b>that is more than the maximal term for a president of the USA. So it is maybe short in royal comparisons, it is long compared to elected heads of state.</b> Short reigns can go deep. Look at the present Pope. Just 4 years and boy, the old man has changed a whole institution. The new King can have a same effect.

That's not... correct. First, "term" refers to the the time between elections. Second, terms can be restricted in two ways; by the length of the term itself and by the number of terms served. Thus, in the US the president is restricted to serving for no more than two terms, with each term being four years.

However, that is not the norm; worldwide most terms are actually five years (or up to five years), and many countries do not limit the number of terms that can be served.

Also, on the issue of the Pope, Pope Francis is an elected monarch. He came into the role specifically to change it. Charles is not comparable; he's not in any way elected and can only make changes that are supported by the government and/or his family. I would add too that there is a good degree of superficiality to the changes Francis has made, but that's not on topic for this thread.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

[...] Charles is going to take over after the most beloved, popular, iconic, famous and most successful head of state (many would say person) in the world. [...].

All qualifications are subjective but I am especially curious in the qualification "most successful". What are the objectives to crown Elizabeth II with that laureate?

Let me just drop a name no one thinks about: President Lyndon B. Johnson with his heroic, historic and visionary Civil Rights legislation, with his noble and idealistic War on Poverty and especially his "Great Society" which still provides the Americans programs as Medcare and Medicaid seem more "succesful" than a completely unpolitical figure born to sit on a golden throne, whom happens to have a long stamina and that is all what we can say about her "achievements".

 

[Dman]

Video:
CNN's Max Foster just posted this amazing video on a day in the life of the Duchess of Cornwall. She brilliantly spoke to Max on CNN and I was moved by her thoughts on domestic abuse and how she want to shine a light on those who's helming people in these situations. Watch here-
http://www.snappytv.com/tc/5264182

 

[Lisele]

No, I think she will be legally queen (because she is C's wife) and she will have the title and be crowned.

Regardless of what we think or how we feel about Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall or more precisely Princess of Wales, when Charles gets crowned King, she will automatically become Queen.

I've been following the royals since I was a child and of all the girlfriends that Charles had, Camilla Shand was and is someone that I never liked. I was actually hoping he would have married Davina Sheffield. She was my candidate at the time. When I read that HM Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother "declared" that Camilla wasn't good enough for him and to end that relationship, I was so happy

When Lady Diana became the candidate, I was all for her and when they got married, I hoped that it would last, which sadly it didn't. And after all that, he got Camilla in the end. Not a fan of Camilla but she makes him happy so who are we to judge. Just my 2 pennies on the subject Sorry if I offended any Camilla fans out there.

 

[MARG]

Telling us what you thought back in the day and what you feel now about Camilla can in no way offend those who admire Camilla.

The only thing that causes offence is when people go out of their way to be rude or nasty which you certainly didn't. You stated your case in a perfectly polite way and although I totally disagree with your final position, I admire the way you stated it.

 

[Osipi]

Like you, Lisele, I also thought Camilla was the epitome of what the wicked witch of the west disguised as a rottweiler would be. Then again, all my information came from glancing at supermarket tabloids and, at the time, those were pretty much biased towards Diana. Camilla still gets the "gin soaked" moniker quite a bit too I believe.

It was being here at TRF that changed my opinion drastically. I actually followed Camilla's activities, engagements and general knowledge about the woman here over the years and my opinion has changed drastically. To me, she's a warm hearted, down to earth and sees the funny side of life. She may not be everyone's cup of tea and that's OK. She obviously is the only brand of tea for Charles. Humans make mistakes in life and no one is an exception but since becoming The Duchess of Cornwall, she has not put one foot wrong in public nor does she go out of her way to "sell" herself to the public. I admire that.

 

[Dman]

I like to focus on who Camilla is today. I dont think anyone liked who she was when she was involved in an affair with a married man. That wasn't her good side and I prefer to leave it in the past.

The problem that media want to re-live it over and over again. Mainly due to profit and wanting royal drama.

 

[ladongas]

I like to focus on who Camilla is today. I dont think anyone liked who she was when she was involved in an affair with a married man. That wasn't her good side and I prefer to leave it in the past.

The problem that media want to re-live it over and over again. Mainly due to profit and wanting royal drama.

The media may want to re-live "it", but the real problem is that "it" still seems unforgettable and unforgivable to many. That's unlikely to change, no matter how charming and impeccable the behavior of the PoW and the DoC.

 

[Dman]

The media may want to re-live "it", but the real problem is that "it" still seems unforgettable and unforgivable to many. That's unlikely to change, no matter how charming and impeccable the behavior of the PoW and the DoC.

No one will ever forget, but it's just time for everyone to move on. It make no sense to hold on to something that's been resolved 21 years ago and everyone involved has moved on. Diana has passed, but she wouldn't want her public to hold on to all that pain and hurt. Folks have to learn to let it go.

People have to stop using Di to beat up on these people too. It's not good to use her memory to do that.

 

[M. Payton]

As my sister here taught me, everyone deserves a *2nd chance in life* and I am a very firm believe in that. I also at one time thought the worst of Camilla and through time and reading and watching and learning I found a really remarkable woman, anyone that takes abused dogs into their home and cares for them and loves them....darn okay in my book.

The thing is....*The past is just that The Past*, we can not change it, it is done and over with and for those that continue to hate her for the past, well that is their problem really not hers that is for sure. And when you can't let go of the past for whatever reasons it might be......then that person is not living today and is missing the present/the now and the today for they are still in the past...what a way to waste your life. And life is way to short to be living yesterday for you should be enjoying the today.

When Charles becomes King Charles there will be a Queen Camilla and that is the order of the BRF......and the way it should be. I do not look forward to losing HM ever yet that is the order of life for everyone, so someday far off in the future we will see both at the helm of the BRF as it should be.

 

[Dee Anna]

When they married was there not a statement issued that when Charles became King Camilla would be known as The Princess Consort? To be official that would, I imagine require a letters patent update? Did that happen? If not, unlike her current known title of Duchess of Cornwall - Charles being Duke of Cornwall - then that is not an official title, or is it? Similiar to Prince Philip? Camilla is currently The Princess of Wales, but will never be referred to by that title, so could she simply assume the PC title albeit unoffficial?

 

[Osipi]

The statement was that it is intended that Camilla would be known as Princess Consort. Nothing has been set in stone and as far as I know, no actions have been taken or any statements made to change things unless you count, when Camilla or Charles has been asked, they responded with the statement of "We'll just have to wait and see".

 

[Dee Anna]

Ok, thanks for that clarification Osipi.

Looking back it's an unusual statement, the Queen was going nowhere soon and Camilla's titles would only be a reflection of Charles' after all. Did the spin men jump the gun there? Why say anything at all and just let events happen. Or was it an attempt at apleasement for the anti Camilla peeps out there?

 

[Iluvbertie]

The 'intention to be known as The Princess Consort' is still the official line of the Prince of Wales website.

At the time the PM stated that it would need legislation to remove her title of The Queen. No legislation has been past to strip one woman of the right to use her husband's name and titles.

I suspect that either they will decide it can't be done OR they will make the genders equal so that the spouse of the monarch is always the Prince/Princess Consort rather than King and Queen or Queen and Prince. That would mean that all spouses remain HRHs and only the monarch is HM.