Camilla and The Public


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I think Prince Charles might be wise to do that, because he is certainly not going to be popular if it people believe he lied when he said that Camilla would be Princess Consort.

I think the phrase "it is intended" will be what gets him off the hook on this one. :D
 
I think the phrase "it is intended" will be what gets him off the hook on this one.

Exactly so, Osipi. We all know intentions change over time, and I hope this is what has happened in this instance..

Certainly there is very little animosity towards the Duchess these days [within the public opinion THAT COUNTS - Great Britains]. Elsewhere [principally in the USA] more rabid opinions seem to hold sway...
 
Exactly so, Osipi. We all know intentions change over time, and I hope this is what has happened in this instance..

Certainly there is very little animosity towards the Duchess these days [within the public opinion THAT COUNTS - Great Britains]. Elsewhere [principally in the USA] more rabid opinions seem to hold sway...

I do think that the British public has warmed to Camilla and I would hope that those in other countries have paid heed to how Camilla has conducted herself as The Duchess of Cornwall. She has been a big asset not only in supporting Charles, but the entire British Royal Family for the past almost 10 years.
 
:previous:And she has done something that really endears her to me, she has rescued dogs and brought them into her home and loved and cared for them. That says something about a person's soul and heart, and as for the events earlier in life, it take 2 people to destroy a marriage, not 1, as they always say there are 2 sides to every story.:flowers:

So whatever Charles wants her to be, then it will be regardless of what anyone else thinks or wants. Charles is going to be one very strong intelligent king someday and I hope that all of the people in the country give him the chance he deserves. I know I would if I lived in England, after all if the people in England had what we have here and they would run for the hills.:lol:
 
:previous:And she has done something that really endears her to me, she has rescued dogs and brought them into her home and loved and cared for them. That says something about a person's soul and heart, and as for the events earlier in life, it take 2 people to destroy a marriage, not 1, as they always say there are 2 sides to every story.:flowers:

So whatever Charles wants her to be, then it will be regardless of what anyone else thinks or wants. Charles is going to be one very strong intelligent king someday and I hope that all of the people in the country give him the chance he deserves. I know I would if I lived in England, after all if the people in England had what we have here and they would run for the hills.:lol:

I have to admit that the first incident of Camilla making a public appearance somewhere (can't remember exactly where it was) and the report following that she had adopted the dog she met, warmed my heart to the core. I've always noticed that when Camilla is pictured with any kind of an animal, you can tell they trust and take to her right off. She seems to have the same effect of the people that she meets. She's warm, friendly and doesn't mind a joke or two and puts people very much at ease. My kind of person.

I also have to believe that when Charles does become King, he will be a strong and intelligent one like you said but also a very happy king as he's got a pretty good support system by his side. :D
 
I have heard over the years that when people meet Camilla, they are surprised at how nice and friendly she is and not how they imagined her to be. It is all too easy to focus on the negatives about someone and ignore the positives and I do firmly believe that there is much to like about Camilla!
 
Exactly so, Osipi. We all know intentions change over time, and I hope this is what has happened in this instance..

Certainly there is very little animosity towards the Duchess these days [within the public opinion THAT COUNTS - Great Britains]. Elsewhere [principally in the USA] more rabid opinions seem to hold sway...

As a Canadian I kind of resent this mentality. The public opinion of the British is not the only one that counts in this regards, at least not currently - while the opinions of many other countries may not be all that important, Charles is in line to the throne of 16 realms, not 1, and the opinion of the Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, etc, is just as important as that of the British - or at least should be, so long as we maintain our ties with the monarchy.
 
However as our constitutions are currently set up we have less say than the British as it is simply that we borrow their Head of State as our own.


In Australia for instance Camilla will be given the same titles that she has in the UK but they won't be 'of Australia'. e.g. The Duke of Edinburgh is treated as HRH The Duke of Edinburgh here and as the consort of the Head of State but he isn't regarded as an Australian whereas The Queen is Queen of Australia but only the monarch holds that distinction so Charles will be King of Australia but Camilla would be The Queen of the UK and treated as Charles' consort but not hold the title of Queen (Consort) of Australia.


I think Canada might be different in that Canada actually treats all the royal family as being 'of Canada' as well but we don't.
 
However as our constitutions are currently set up we have less say than the British as it is simply that we borrow their Head of State as our own.


In Australia for instance Camilla will be given the same titles that she has in the UK but they won't be 'of Australia'. e.g. The Duke of Edinburgh is treated as HRH The Duke of Edinburgh here and as the consort of the Head of State but he isn't regarded as an Australian whereas The Queen is Queen of Australia but only the monarch holds that distinction so Charles will be King of Australia but Camilla would be The Queen of the UK and treated as Charles' consort but not hold the title of Queen (Consort) of Australia.


I think Canada might be different in that Canada actually treats all the royal family as being 'of Canada' as well but we don't.

Canada has an official Royal Family and recognizes members of the Canadian Royal Family to be Canadian (although there has been debate as to whether that means that they're actual citizens or just honourary citizens). I don't think, beyond the Queen, they're officially "of Canada" in the same way that they're "of the United Kingdom", as Canadian titles don't seem to work that way (beyond the Queen); like the Australians we tend to just recognize them with their British titles. However, I'm not entirely sure if that would extend to the wife of a King. I'm not entirely sure if King George VI was officially "King of Canada" in the same sense that the Queen is now "Queen of Canada", and as such I'm not certain if his title extended to his wife in a typical fashion. To me it would make sense; the King of the United Kingdom's wife is the Queen of the United Kingdom, so it would reason that the King of Canada's wife would also be the Queen of Canada. But I'm not sure what the precedent was; I'm inclined to think that the idea that the monarch is separately monarch of each of the realms is something that only came about during the Queen's reign.

That said, my initial point still stands. Even if Camilla holds no further standing in the realms outside of Britain than being the wife of the future king, the public opinion in the realms still counts - we still matter. If we don't like Camilla, if we don't like the idea of her being the wife of our king when the time comes then it's only going to serve to fracture the already tender relationship between the realms and the monarchy. The whole idea that the Australian or Canadian or whoever public opinion isn't as important as the British one is, in my opinion, a huge part of why you see such a strong republican movement in some of the realms - if the RF was actually making the Australians feel like they were as important as the Brits, do you really think so many Australians would be wanting a republic? Personally, I don't think that my opinion towards the wife of my future king is one that doesn't count or is comparable to that of the opinion of an individual who lives in a country that has no actual connection to the monarchy, which is what I felt that wyevale was implying.
 
I don't think it would make any difference. Australians are increasingly less linked to the UK as the newer migrants are coming more and more from Asia.


The monarchy simply doesn't rate down here - sure when William and Kate came down under there was some interest but really most Aussies don't care about them and have no real interest. They will accept whomever is the King and if his wife is called Queen in the UK will be called Queen here.


I do expect that within a couple of years of Charles becoming King Australia will be a republic anyway - the question is largely on the back-burner now due to the Queen as both sides have almost agreed to not to relook at the issue during the present reign but they will then go for it - and use Diana against Charles in the campaign to become a republic.


Most Aussies don't like Camilla anyway - she has only been here once in nearly 10 years of marriage for about one week and she met a few hundred people - most of whom were pleased to have met her but largely she is still seen as 'the other woman'. There has been no real attempt to have her connect with Australia and Australians. Even William and Kate didn't really connect that well - sure a lot of coverage of their tour but how many people care about them now - not really. They are no different to any other celebrities or movie stars or pop stars - in fact One Direction would be more recognisable down here to many Aussies and would create more interest.


The morning TV shows have had a few minutes of coverage of the trip to NYC - repeated every half hour - but there us normally no coverage of the royals down here unless there is some scandal.
 
I felt that wyevale was implying.

I'm sorry if that was my implication, Ish. I'm certain that the views held by the public in the Commonwealth realms are relayed, and taken into account by 'Buckingham Palace', altho' I don't think the British public hear details of them.

Are there strong vocal lobbies in Canada objecting to the Duchess becoming Queen Consort?
 
However as our constitutions are currently set up we have less say than the British as it is simply that we borrow their Head of State as our own.


In Australia for instance Camilla will be given the same titles that she has in the UK but they won't be 'of Australia'. e.g. The Duke of Edinburgh is treated as HRH The Duke of Edinburgh here and as the consort of the Head of State but he isn't regarded as an Australian whereas The Queen is Queen of Australia but only the monarch holds that distinction so Charles will be King of Australia but Camilla would be The Queen of the UK and treated as Charles' consort but not hold the title of Queen (Consort) of Australia.


I think Canada might be different in that Canada actually treats all the royal family as being 'of Canada' as well but we don't.


I was under the impression that the monarch had different titles and styles in different Commonwealth realms. Shouldn't the same apply to the monarch's consort ? Please clarify.
 
The Consort is simply the spouse.


Whereas The Queen is also Queen of Australia and as such is regarded as an Australian citizen the rest of the family are simply British citizens who have fancy titles that they use in Australia but they don't hold those titles as Australians.


As far as I am aware Canada is the only other realm that has given those titles some official recognition in Canada.


Why would we want to give another foreigner a title or some such thing just because they are married to the Head of State. We don't have a special status for the spouse of the GG or PM - they are simply an appendage to the actual office-holder.
 
Canada has an official Royal Family...Even if Camilla holds no further standing in the realms outside of Britain than being the wife of the future king, the public opinion in the realms still counts - we still matter. If we don't like Camilla, if we don't like the idea of her being the wife of our king when the time comes then it's only going to serve to fracture the already tender relationship between the realms and the monarchy. The whole idea that the Australian or Canadian or whoever public opinion isn't as important as the British one is, in my opinion, a huge part of why you see such a strong republican movement in some of the realms - if the RF was actually making the Australians feel like they were as important as the Brits, do you really think so many Australians would be wanting a republic? Personally, I don't think that my opinion towards the wife of my future king is one that doesn't count or is comparable to that of the opinion of an individual who lives in a country that has no actual connection to the monarchy, which is what I felt that wyevale was implying.

I agree; I think we in Canada have our own relationship with the royal family. They're not just 'Britain's royal family.' The prime minister has emphasized Canada's royal connections, to the point of putting 'royal' back in the title of some branches of the military. The Queen is known as the 'Queen of Canada.' I don't remember the exact context, but I was in a class with a prof not too long ago where he was describing Canada's political system, noted that the Queen was head of state, and then sort of mocked Charles when he was discussing the next head of state. I think he said that the Queen was respected, but Charles - no one really wants him to succeed her.

That might not be the universal opinion of most Canadians, but most Canadians don't know much about Camilla or think highly of her. I do think the opinions of Canadians matter. Canadians are some of the most loyal members of the Commonwealth (IMO). We're not like Australia and pro-Republican; many Canadians don't care much about the monarchy, but many other Canadians do and feel a sense of loyalty to the Queen, more than the monarchy itself. It's not good news for Britain if Canadians turn against Charles.

I am not for or against Camilla, really. I would prefer that Charles never had an affair with her, but since they are married, I think everyone should respect her position in Charles' life. However, not everyone will say the same: I think many people, in Canada and around the world, will feel offended and upset should Charles make Camilla Queen Consort. It might be legal, but in many people's eyes it will be wrong, just like it was perfectly reasonable for the Queen not to make a public statement when Diana died, but the public interpreted her silence as harsh and unfeeling. Yes, there will be some reaction from the Commonwealth if there is a coronation for 'Queen Camilla', and I think Charles should anticipate it.
 
Last edited:
I think that when people are face-à-face with the Duchess of Cornwall, they will always be nice to her, like Camilla is always so friendly to everyone. Outside the UK where Camilla is probably only known as "the woman for whom Charles left Diana" she seems to have a good reception too.

When she came to Amsterdam, she was met with loud cheer when she arrived:
http://www2.pictures.zimbio.com/pc/Camilla+Parker+Bowles+Prince+Charles+Arrives+FrAxnyNEfINx.jpg

A bystander gave her a typical bouquet of Dutch tulips:
http://www3.pictures.zimbio.com/pc/Camilla+Parker+Bowles+Prince+Charles+Arrives+AZAL8W7v1Ksx.jpg

So she really got a well-willing welcome over there and this was not different in Brussels, Stockholm, Copenhagen, Oslo and Madrid. So "Camilla and the public", we can say: basic well-willingness towards her. I feel it is the same in the UK. The stories about Camilla The Rottweiler are really ages ago.
 
Well, I'm an Australian and republicanism is really on the back burner here, rarely discussed and not on the political horizon.

Young Australians (and that doesn't just mean Anglos) have favourable feelings towards the monarchy and actually republicanism has sank to a new low in opinion polls in the last decade or so. I wouldn't consider Australians pro a republic at all.

There will always be a section of the British and Commonwealth populations who were fans of Diana and followed her during her lifetime. These tend to be middle aged and older females.

They are not a large section of the public but they're not insignificant either. For these women (and some men) the circumstances of the breakup of the Prince of Wales's first marriage will never be forgotten.

Of course, memories fade and Camilla is accepted as Charles's wife and probably will be as Queen. That doesn't mean that the people I've mentioned have to like Camilla, and they don't.
 
:previous: Yes indeed, time marches on inexorably and people respond to what they see. I know that both Charles and Camilla made more that a few people happy here in Christchurch. They were well up on what had happened here and what was happening with the rebuild, they were fully engaged, asked serious questions and, at the Dance-O-Mat Gap Filler were willing to be as happy or silly as anyone else.

https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&r...=gWvYm3uWZnx7ZsAh0U8emA&bvm=bv.81828268,d.dGY

Utterly priceless!
 
The reinvention of Camilla: How a dash of charm and a LOT of charity work have turned the Duchess of Cornwall into one of Britain's favourite royals-
The reinvention of Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall | Daily Mail Online

The Duchess of Cornwall has indeed come a long way. She may have had the help of PR Mark Bolland, but she has eased herself into her royal very beautifully.
 
Agree 100%. Camilla is one of the royal ladies I have endeared most to. She will become as beloved as Princess Lilian of Sweden was. Mark my words.
 
Princess Lilian was a loyal de facto wife for decades to a man who sacrificed his chance of having a family for the sake of the nation.

Charles wanted to have his cake and eat it too. Nothing self-sacrificial in his or Camilla's behaviour at all, ever. Camilla regularly comes at the rear of the pack when the public rates members of the royal family, and she's been in that family for nearly a decade.

At the royal wedding of Kate and William boos were heard among the cheering from the public when Charles and Camilla appeared. The other royals were roundly cheered. I'd say there would be quite a deal of work to do before Camilla gets to Princess Lilian levels of popularity and it won't happen.
 
Camilla and Charles still have a lot of work to do she didn't even make it on the list of Royal Duties. I don't think she is as accepted by the general public as the PR machine of Clarence House likes us to think. She did get booed at the wedding and there are still alot of people who do not like her. Let's see what happens when Charles takes the throne I don't think it's going to go as smoothly as he thinks it will and lot's of things will be bought up. Afterall Camilla with be a Queen with a very colourful past and a not so good reputation. She and Charles both cheated it's going to be very hard for people to respect them unlike the Queen.
 
Princess Lilian was a loyal de facto wife for decades to a man who sacrificed his chance of having a family for the sake of the nation.

Charles wanted to have his cake and eat it too. Nothing self-sacrificial in his or Camilla's behaviour at all, ever. Camilla regularly comes at the rear of the pack when the public rates members of the royal family, and she's been in that family for nearly a decade.

At the royal wedding of Kate and William boos were heard among the cheering from the public when Charles and Camilla appeared. The other royals were roundly cheered. I'd say there would be quite a deal of work to do before Camilla gets to Princess Lilian levels of popularity and it won't happen.

I know. Wasn't it terrible that a few silly, immature people tried to ruin Catherine and William's day by taking the focus off the bride and groom. Thankfully most people saw them for what they were.

Camilla will never be beloved but but she will continue to do as much as she can to support the Queen, her husband, and the UK. Most people have moved on from judging her for events that happened more than 20 years before.
 
Charles wanted to have his cake and eat it too. Nothing self-sacrificial in his or Camilla's behaviour at all, ever.

I don't agree with you.

At the royal wedding of Kate and William boos were heard among the cheering from the public when Charles and Camilla appeared. The other royals were roundly cheered.

I and my brother and some friends were in the mall during the wedding, and we heard nothing.

She and Charles both cheated it's going to be very hard for people to respect them unlike the Queen.

So did Diana.
 
Last edited:
:previous: We seem to have a new generation of people who have learned it all by virtue of the Daily Mail, Andrew Morton, etc. Having taken a stand for their Princess they are going to continue to pour acid on any good publicity for Camilla.

I think it very sad that there is such and incredible double standard. Everyman in the street has the right to get a divorce and not get harangued weekly for the rest of their lives. They are not villified, they are not ostracised, time passes and people grow and change. We learn from our mistakes and hopefully, we aspire to be better people.

Camilla is denied that right by many on this board. Every single good thing said or printed is denounced and the whole nasty past regurgitated once again, with the virtue of 20/20 hindsight and no personal insight.

These people are not going to grow and change, they were, for the most part, children or teens when it all happened and fairytales, by virtue of sheer repitition, become 'facts'. Nothing at all admirable or equitable will ever be considered.

You didn't hear any booing, and you were there. Were they I wonder?
 
These people are not going to grow and change, they were, for the most part, children or teens when it all happened and fairytales, by virtue of sheer repitition, become 'facts'. Nothing at all admirable or equitable will ever be considered.

You know, I feel nothing but pity for those people. It must be terrible to be trapped in the past and blinded by irrational hatred and prejudice.
 
I think Camilla has come a long way but I also think this article is a bit of a stretch.


She is tolerated at best by the majority of the population, respected by some but not really loved.


As for the comment about 'she didn't even make it on the list of Royal Duties' shows either a lack of understanding about the Royal Duties' articles or the actual numbers.


Most of the articles, such as the DM, focused on the born royals and only on some of the spouses. Camilla did get a mention in Mr O'Donovan's letter and that is regarded as the closest to an 'official' tally there is. He had her at 224 while I had her at 227.


The DM article was aimed at attacking Kate for her low figures compared to The Queen. Others were similar - showing how much The Queen is still doing while pointing out how little Kate is doing (comparing Kate in the first year after George was born I had her at 88 - birthday to birthday - while Sophie for instance in the first year of Louise's life was 180 - and the media are starting to pick up on Kate's lack of work for the family). This is what the British media do - build someone up and then tear them down - Kate is in the first phase of being torn down - probably because she hasn't turned into Diana Mark II and isn't the golden cash cow the media thought she would be so time to pull her down.




I believe there were a few people who booed but who were they booing - Charles or Camilla - when they arrived at the Abbey but the vast majority of the crowd cheered then and for the rest of the day.
 
You know, I feel nothing but pity for those people. It must be terrible to be trapped in the past and blinded by irrational hatred and prejudice.


And the Diana haters are exactly the same to see some of the stuff that is written you would think there was more than 3 people in the marriage as they know every word or thought that they all had 30 years ago


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
And the Diana haters are exactly the same to see some of the stuff that is written you would think there was more than 3 people in the marriage as they know every word or thought that they all had 30 years ago


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Oh, so you thought the Worshippers of Saint Diana were the only allowed to pretend they know everything about that marriage and the people involved in it?
 
There were two people in the marriage from the beginning until around 1984 - 1986 - depending on which version of Diana's people believe. She never said that Charles was continuing with Camilla all through the marriage but identified 1986 as when he went back to Charles. When Diana brought extra men into the marriage isn't so clear - could be as early as 1984 or as late as 1986 but it is clear from what they have both said that there were two to begin with and four by 1986.
 
Back
Top Bottom