Charles & Camilla: How has your opinion changed since the wedding?


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
:previous: Yes, but there are enough trouble-making anarchist nuts and misguided, easily led young people out there for there to be the possibility of some noisy unpleasantness. But, as Bertie correctly says, we will just have to wait and see.
 
The fact that Charles mentioned it - isn't it an indication of something? If so, what? Why mention it to begin with unless there is the possibility of his accession nearing somehow. I have thought it might indicate that the Queen and Prince Philip might start to step back a bit, allowing Charles and Camilla to step forward, maybe even give Charles more obvious presence in a 'regnal' way. Is that so unlikely?

Also, doesn't such a situation have precedence? I'm thinking of the remarkable life of the Prince Regent, George, Prince of Wales. In that case he was dealing with his father's erratic mental state - if I've got my history right - but surely aging monarchs have allowed their son or daughter some power before they die to assure a secure transition.

The 'off with their heads' comment was pure adolescent opportunism - and considerably crass - and I say that as not even British. It cannot be taken as an indicator of anything, I don't think.
 
The fact that Charles mentioned it - isn't it an indication of something? If so, what? Why mention it to begin with unless there is the possibility of his accession nearing somehow. I have thought it might indicate that the Queen and Prince Philip might start to step back a bit, allowing Charles and Camilla to step forward, maybe even give Charles more obvious presence in a 'regnal' way. Is that so unlikely?

Also, doesn't such a situation have precedence? I'm thinking of the remarkable life of the Prince Regent, George, Prince of Wales. In that case he was dealing with his father's erratic mental state - if I've got my history right - but surely aging monarchs have allowed their son or daughter some power before they die to assure a secure transition.

The 'off with their heads' comment was pure adolescent opportunism - and considerably crass - and I say that as not even British. It cannot be taken as an indicator of anything, I don't think.


The difference with George V being Prince Regent was that his father was declared insane and unable to carry out the duties of monarch. There is no suggestion that the Queen is in that situation.

A better comparison is Victoria except that due to the death of Albert she withdraw from public events however she kept the reigns of the monarch very much in her own hands and wouldn't allow her heir any role, even to ease the burden by officially representing her in public, although he did host some visits from other countries representatives but only when the government pushed.

Whileever the Queen can carry out her official duties she will do so. She may cut back on the unofficial stuff and let Charles and Camilla pick up some of those - e.g. Philip is said to be cutting down some of his patronages etc so those unofficial roles could pass to Charles and even to William and Kate.
 
You missed my point entirely. If the moment in time that Charles announces 'Queen Camilla' happens to coincide with a moment of serious unrest for whatever reson there could easily be a perfect storm of unhappiness leading to a shedding of the monarchy all together. Last time in history the words 'off with their heads' were chanted at a royal it didnt end well. And thank you for your thoughts on my education, MARG. I shall be sure to ask for the tuition back from Harvard as it was apparently a complete waste.

Marg made the point that the protests from the other night were about increased university fees, not royals. 'Off with the their heads' weren't the only things chanted, more prominantly were 'Tory scrum" and "It's your government!" The protesters were complaining about the government and Charles and Camilla were seen as representatives of that government. The protest was against the government!

Even currently there aren't enough Brits who have strong enough feelings to protest about Camilla becoming queen. The current Prime Minister supports the idea, young people don't have strong enough feelings to hit the streets, they care more about their education and having to spend the rest of their lives paying for it! It's older people who contain the strong anti-Camilla brigade, will they be around to make a major protest? They didn't even manage it for the 10th anniversary of Diana's death, or the inquest into her death. About 100 people were at the memorial outside the Guards Chapel and daily a handful of people turned up at the inquest. Much to the surprise of the organisers who prepared for 100s. The numbers who leave flowers at Kensington Palace on the anniversary of her death has now dwindled to less than 50 (2010) So I can't see a mass rising of the people complaining about Camilla becoming queen, there will be your hardcore, but in the future they will be considered insignificant.

I do agree with Bertie too, should the current Queen live another 10 years, then it will be pretty certain that Camilla will be Queen consort with no controversy.

A little piece of annoyance with me, why do some Americans always try to perpetuate the idea that the monarchy is teetering on the edge of oblivion? It's not and although the abdication rocked it somewhat, Diana's death, irrespective of what the tabloids wrote didn't cause any teetering closer to the edge! Republican support in the UK has remained steadily under 10% since the 1870s!!! The highest profile republican politicians were in the 1960s and 70s, the movement "Republic Now" that the newspapers ask for commentary whenever they want a critical reaction to any royal has a very small membership base. The institution that is the British monarchy is far stronger than individual personalities, it's part of people's lives.
 
Last edited:
Charles has always made it known that he wants her crowned beside him as his Queen but that doesn't change the official line from CH and BP is still that she will be Princess Consort - so Charles has a personal preference and an official line and he will wait and see when the time comes.

One tend to forget that Charles is a very stubborn man used to get his way whenever he can. And that only his mother and probably his father really can gainsay him and order him to do things he doesn't want to do. But as soon as his mother's dead, he is the boss. And if the new king asks his new prime minister to call his wife Queen Camilla, the prime minister will do it. And all will follow suit. There are not enough Scooters in Britain to stop the avalanche of mourning addresses send to the new king and queen. In case of mourning, people normally don't think of riots but they seek to console each other. And that means giving Charles his wish.
 
One tend to forget that Charles is a very stubborn man used to get his way whenever he can. And that only his mother and probably his father really can gainsay him and order him to do things he doesn't want to do. But as soon as his mother's dead, he is the boss. And if the new king asks his new prime minister to call his wife Queen Camilla, the prime minister will do it. And all will follow suit. There are not enough Scooters in Britain to stop the avalanche of mourning addresses send to the new king and queen. In case of mourning, people normally don't think of riots but they seek to console each other. And that means giving Charles his wish.

Its also not just about Charles being stubborn, or always wanting to get his way. The fact of the matter is that Camilla will be the wife of the King, and the wife of the King is the Queen, like it or not.

The current PM is certainly supportive of the idea of Queen Camilla, and as are most people in the Kingdom.
 
Its also not just about Charles being stubborn, or always wanting to get his way. The fact of the matter is that Camilla will be the wife of the King, and the wife of the King is the Queen, like it or not.

Well, I like the idea!!!:wave::wave:
 
Personally, I think it would be going too far to give her the title of Queen. She's gotten most of what she wants, she is now married to her long time love... a person she had an affair with in public! I think out of respect for William and Harry, and the public in general, she should be content with a lesser title. :curtsey:
 
Personally, I think it would be going too far to give her the title of Queen. She's gotten most of what she wants, she is now married to her long time love... a person she had an affair with in public! I think out of respect for William and Harry, and the public in general, she should be content with a lesser title. :curtsey:

Monarchy has next to nothing to do with the actual people holding positions in a Royal family but with traditions and rules. One rule is that the wife of the king is the queen. Another is that the monarch is the fount of all honours in this country so it is the souverain's privilege to bestow or take away honours if there is no letters patent granting it according to the will of a former souverain.

All that together means: it doesn't matter if or if not Camilla "deserves" something. She has a right by law to be the queen one day as she is the wife of the next king. The only person who can do something about this will be her husband. Apart from the current queen, who has shown that she is not willing to change the rules actively. As long as Elizabeth II. rules, nothing will be done except talking about "intentions". Once Charles is king, he would need the parliament to take the title of queen away from his wife. The current prime minister is not willing to do any downgrading of the wife of the next king. I doubt the future prime minister of Charles as king will do it without Charles' explicit wish. I don't see Charles wishing for his wife to be anything else but his queen.

So where is it going "too far"? That's how things are in the British monarchy. If Camlla died tomorrow and Charles married again, then this wife would be the future queen. Because it's not the person who counts but her place in the system. And Camilla's place is being Charles' wife. Charles is the future king, thus she is the future queen.

Edit: Another point. It wasn't Camilla who had her affair with Charles "in the public". It was Diana who made the affair public and it was the media who wouldn't let Camilla live a quiet and discreet life. It was only after Diana's death (and some years after it) that Charles went public with Camilla and a short time later he married her. William and Harry surely were taught from a very young age to respect the rules and traditions of the monarchy they are a part of. They surely won't mind if Camilla takes her rightful place as their father's wife.
 
Last edited:
Marg made the point that the protests from the other night were about increased university fees, not royals. 'Off with the their heads' weren't the only things chanted, more prominantly were 'Tory scrum" and "It's your government!" The protesters were complaining about the government and Charles and Camilla were seen as representatives of that government. The protest was against the government!

Even currently there aren't enough Brits who have strong enough feelings to protest about Camilla becoming queen. The current Prime Minister supports the idea, young people don't have strong enough feelings to hit the streets, they care more about their education and having to spend the rest of their lives paying for it! It's older people who contain the strong anti-Camilla brigade, will they be around to make a major protest? They didn't even manage it for the 10th anniversary of Diana's death, or the inquest into her death. About 100 people were at the memorial outside the Guards Chapel and daily a handful of people turned up at the inquest. Much to the surprise of the organisers who prepared for 100s. The numbers who leave flowers at Kensington Palace on the anniversary of her death has now dwindled to less than 50 (2010) So I can't see a mass rising of the people complaining about Camilla becoming queen, there will be your hardcore, but in the future they will be considered insignificant.

I do agree with Bertie too, should the current Queen live another 10 years, then it will be pretty certain that Camilla will be Queen consort with no controversy.

A little piece of annoyance with me, why do some Americans always try to perpetuate the idea that the monarchy is teetering on the edge of oblivion? It's not and although the abdication rocked it somewhat, Diana's death, irrespective of what the tabloids wrote didn't cause any teetering closer to the edge! Republican support in the UK has remained steadily under 10% since the 1870s!!! The highest profile republican politicians were in the 1960s and 70s, the movement "Republic Now" that the newspapers ask for commentary whenever they want a critical reaction to any royal has a very small membership base. The institution that is the British monarchy is far stronger than individual personalities, it's part of people's lives.


Thank you for expressing all this - I am learning a great deal on this Board. In particular I have become heartened to realize that the impression that is being created over here in the US - through our tabloid press - is not accurate. We are 'fed' a very different picture of the Diana thing and especially the popularity of Charles - and poor Camilla.

It is curious to me that it seems to be Americans who are expressing the disaffection with Camilla and the sainting of Diana. Isn't that odd? I think so.
 
Personally, I think it would be going too far to give her the title of Queen. She's gotten most of what she wants, she is now married to her long time love... a person she had an affair with in public! I think out of respect for William and Harry, and the public in general, she should be content with a lesser title. :curtsey:

One thing I've realized over the years is that Camilla is not a limelight nor title seeking type of woman. What matters to her is Charles and I don't recall any instance where it could be construed that she was out to get something from him. For over 30+ years she's been a pal, confidante, shoulder to lean on, lover and then wife. If that isn't a remarkable definition of what a Queen Consort is.. I don't know what is. The fact remains that the moment Charles becomes King, Camilla is his Queen. Charles would like that, the PM would like that and I think a lot of the public sees how well she supports her husband and would accept her as Queen Consort.

There is one more angle to look at about the style Princess Consort. It very well could be that this style is what Camilla herself would prefer to be known as. This is the same woman that out of respect for the late Diana and her boys, chose to be styled The Duchess of Cornwall. At the time of their marriage, jumping into the public fishbowl was something totally alien to Camilla although she very well knew how it all worked. She understands Charles and has done her very best I think to play a supporting role for him over the last 5 years. I think she'd rather the spotlight be on Charles rather than on her. To me, Princess Consort should it be used, denotes more strongly that she is the King's support.

My bet is on that she'll be Queen Consort though once Charles does become King.
 
Personally, I think it would be going too far to give her the title of Queen. She's gotten most of what she wants, she is now married to her long time love... a person she had an affair with in public! I think out of respect for William and Harry, and the public in general, she should be content with a lesser title. :curtsey:

Why do you think she had an affair in public? From what I know, the affair was conducted very discreetly - it was Diana who 'outed' it and took every opportunity to mention it.

Stating what Camilla has 'wanted' is shaky territory - she has never presented as someone that wanted the limelight or 'wanted' to be wife and Queen of Charles. She was propelled into the situation and has taken something on that she never opted for willingly it looks like to me. Diana is the sole source for thinking otherwise of Camilla and Diana is not a reliable source in this regard.

Out of respect for William and Harry it would be good for people in the public realm not to seek to harm or injure people William and Harry love and value - which they clearly do with Camilla, as well as their father. This continual ranting against Camilla must be hurtful to them, don't you think?
 
My opinion has not changed since the wedding. I was deeply disappointed in both Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall for their behaviour, and continue to be. I don't wish either of them ill, but I lost a great deal of respect for them.
 
My opinion has not changed since the wedding. I was deeply disappointed in both Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall for their behaviour, and continue to be. I don't wish either of them ill, but I lost a great deal of respect for them.
Yes,that's very sad anyway.If they loved each other,why didn't they marry at their time?
 
A little piece of annoyance with me, why do some Americans always try to perpetuate the idea that the monarchy is teetering on the edge of oblivion? It's not and although the abdication rocked it somewhat, Diana's death, irrespective of what the tabloids wrote didn't cause any teetering closer to the edge! Republican support in the UK has remained steadily under 10% since the 1870s!!! The highest profile republican politicians were in the 1960s and 70s, the movement "Republic Now" that the newspapers ask for commentary whenever they want a critical reaction to any royal has a very small membership base. The institution that is the British monarchy is far stronger than individual personalities, it's part of people's lives.

Ha, I am an American, and I was going to ask basically the same question! Rather, I have noticed that some folks seem to think there has to be a vote or something for Camilla to be queen, as if she were being voted in as vice president or something. Well, I have to admit to having been a fan of royalty most of my life, and maybe that's why I understand that it's not a question of popularity, it's a question of tradition and law, and so Camilla will be Queen Consort as soon as Charles becomes King, regardless of popularity. Would that bring the monarchy down? I very much doubt it, the monarchy has survived the abdication of Edward VIII, the scandals and divorces of Diana and Sarah, and plenty of other problems. I doubt that the title of the King's wife will bring down a system so entwined with British culture and tradition. Perhaps that's why I like the monarchy so much, since our political system here in the U.S. is so personality-driven, and media-managed.
 
My opinion has not changed since the wedding. I was deeply disappointed in both Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall for their behaviour, and continue to be. I don't wish either of them ill, but I lost a great deal of respect for them.

Interesting how we see different things in the same event. I saw a very nervous Camilla, taking a step for Charles, not for herself, and my respect for her was born (not that I dis-respected her before then). It was then I realized that there was something odd about the anti-Camilla rhetoric. If any of it were true - I am going to go out on a limb here - but if any of it were even half-way true, I doubt the Queen would have given permission for the marriage. That alone says something about Camilla and the way it must 'really be' not the way it gets spun in some quarters.
 
Personally, I think it would be going too far to give her the title of Queen. She's gotten most of what she wants, she is now married to her long time love... a person she had an affair with in public! I think out of respect for William and Harry, and the public in general, she should be content with a lesser title. :curtsey:

I think she would be content with a lesser title, being that I beleive she is in love with Charles the man not Charles The Prince of Wales. It is Charles who I think would have a problem with her not being Queen...IMO of course ..Also, I beleive that we will see HM Queen Camillia in the furture and good for him to have his great love by his side as he rules.
 
Last edited:
You missed my point entirely. If the moment in time that Charles announces 'Queen Camilla' happens to coincide with a moment of serious unrest for whatever reson there could easily be a perfect storm of unhappiness leading to a shedding of the monarchy all together. Last time in history the words 'off with their heads' were chanted at a royal it didnt end well. And thank you for your thoughts on my education, MARG. I shall be sure to ask for the tuition back from Harvard as it was apparently a complete waste.

Scooter, when did you graduate -- I got my degree in 1969. Veritas, christo et ecclesiae.
 
I think they have been honest. The intention then, as it still is, is that she will be known as Princess Consort.

However, that intention may change in the future to be that she will be known as Queen Consort.

To say they weren't honest from the start is simply unfair, unless you have concrete evidence that all along the intention was that she would be Queen.

There is a difference between what the official intention is and what Charles would like as well. It would be right to say that all along Charles has wanted Camilla to be his Queen but that is normal for any man who loves his wife - that she would take his titles in full. However Charles, more than anyone, knows the way the public took to his first wife and that Camilla wouldn't be accepted that way and thus realises that the time isn't right for a change in the stated intention.

If the Queen died tomorrow I think Camilla would be Princess Consort but if the Queen survives another 10 years then she could become Queen.

It is a perception issue. Even to this day he still says something like she might be Queen. I think the palace should stop waffling and pick a side or at least clear-up the legal side of things. If he wants her to be Queen then just say so and let go of the Princess Consort thing otherwise when asked the question say no she will the princess consort. I don't think that it will change public opinion one way or another. Most people already know how they feel on the issue and they don't appear to be changing.
 
One tend to forget that Charles is a very stubborn man used to get his way whenever he can. And that only his mother and probably his father really can gainsay him and order him to do things he doesn't want to do. But as soon as his mother's dead, he is the boss. And if the new king asks his new prime minister to call his wife Queen Camilla, the prime minister will do it. And all will follow suit. There are not enough Scooters in Britain to stop the avalanche of mourning addresses send to the new king and queen. In case of mourning, people normally don't think of riots but they seek to console each other. And that means giving Charles his wish.
Your description of Charles is one that I have subscribed to for many years as do many others......:flowers:

As far as the PM of the day, depending on the tenor of the day when that happens, ie...it could easily be 20 years....Camilla is not as long lived familialy as the Windsors, it may be a moot point...the economy could be booming which makes people far more tolerant. We are all at the whim of fate in this life.
 
No one has ever suggested that she wouldn't be Queen Consort in fact, just as she is Princess of Wales. This was confirmed in parliament in the week leading up to the wedding.

The necessity for legislation has been mentioned but not confirmed.

It could very simply be that on the day in question the Princess Consort title starts being used with no announcement etc being made.

We will simply have to wait and see what happens.

Charles has always made it known that he wants her crowned beside him as his Queen but that doesn't change the official line from CH and BP is still that she will be Princess Consort - so Charles has a personal preference and an official line and he will wait and see when the time comes.

If this, BTW, is not the absolute definition of disingenuous in the dictionary, we really should write to the Webster's Dictionary people.
 
This thread isn't about Diana and whatever damage she may have done to the monarchy. This thread is about whether our opinion has changed since the Prince of Wales made a honest woman of the Duchess of Cornwall.

"Long term" and "discrete" do not make it right. For anyone and, especially, a royal who is one day going to be the Head of the English Church. Would you enjoy having your spouse indulging in a "long term" and "discrete" affair with a "long term love"? I wouldn't. Would you want someone who is going to - effectively - be a church elder one day to have conducted a long term affair with someone other than his wife and then try to justify it by stating "... well, my marriage had been going wrong for years..."? I wouldn't. For me, personally, that would reveal not only a lack of depth and character in the person, but, also, a lack of any real appreciation for anyone's feelings other than his/her own.

An affair is an affair. It is cheap by its very existence. Trying to justify it by turning it into the "romance of the century" and indulging in a massive public "rehabilitation" doesn't transform it's shabby origins. I would have respected both the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall a great deal more had they waited until both of them were in a position where a relationship could have been conducted openly and lovingly. The very fact that they snuck around for so long, tells me that they were both very aware of what they were doing was wrong and would hurt a number of people.

No matter how you look at it, the Prince of Wales behaved imprudently and recklessly, and - certainly - without any grace. When he becomes king, he will not be a king that I can respect. There will always be that doubt that - when the going gets rough - he's going to indulge himself and his feelings before thinking of anything else.

I have met the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall. They are charming people. They know how to make one feel at ease. They both have a great sense of humour. As people, I like them immensely. As future sovereigns, I wouldn't trust either of them to do what is best of the continuation of the monarchy or the support of it's image.

And, perhaps, that is the great tragedy of their "love affair".
 
As people, I like them immensely. As future sovereigns, I wouldn't trust either of them to do what is best of the continuation of the monarchy or the support of it's image.

Selena, I truly find your opnion as you stated it understandible and feel you're very much entitled to have it.

But you obviously have a very romantic if not wishfully view on the idea of monarchy. The king never was a father-figure in reality, no king ever was. Not even that French king who became a saint - he was pretty cruel at times. Another example for season's sake is Santa Claus aka St. Nicolas of Myra. He was one of the "fathers" of the concil of Nicaea and is still notorious for having been quite brutal on fighting for his ideas....

So compared to his ancestors and other folk in his position, Charles is a very "good" man. A much better man than Henry VIII. who was the first "defender of the faith" and head of the Church of England. I personally trust him absolutely when it comes to his duty.

Of course conveying the idea of the "good" king always helped keeping his subjects from rioting. But that's just image, not reality. And king Charles will be better than most before him. But that's my opinion. But then I see the monarchy not as a positive myth but as a historic institution whose whole existence is based on some very unpleasant facts - greed, war, murder and the longing for power. Plus a lot of personal vanity in believing in "god-given" rights.
 
Why is so difficult from some part of the public to forgive and forget these old, yes old, stories?
We can forgive the Duke of Edinburgh, a well known womaniser (who cheated on the Queen more than once), the highly respected Princess Anne (who was exactly in the same situation than her brother, as some people tend to forget), forget the numerous stories surrounding the Duke of kent, Pce and Pcess Michael, Linley and more BUT Charles has to live until the end of his life with the word sinner on the forehead just because he was one time married with a now defunct woman who was regarded as a national treasure (and god knows she was herself not a saint).
It's just deeply unfair....
This family made peace with all these events. 20 years later i think it's time for some people to move on...
 
Last edited:
We can forgive the Duke of Edinburgh, a well known womaniser (who cheated on the Queen more than once)

Sorry to detract from the topic of Charles and Camilla here but I just have to say something about this statement. What are the sources for the statement in reference to the Duke of Edinburgh? To my knowledge, there has never been any credible evidence that any of this has occurred.

It *is* true that the DoE has close intimate friends who share common interests with him that just happen to be women such as Lady Brabourne.
There has never been evidence that the DoE has been anything but faithful to HM.
 
Last edited:
I have had a chance to watch (several times), the reporter who first approached Prince Charles for his reaction to the announcement that his son was about to be married. His statement, something to the effect of, "Yes, it's obvious the announcement is true, they've been practicing at it long enough," or whatever he said with that disdainful look on his face was just another version of "ME, why isn't everyone asking about ME, why are you interrupted MY conversation about MY important topic to ask about that kid who is getting married."

Sorry, but that's what I saw - and I can't forgive him for it. Perhaps it's all the coverage, showing him at his own wedding, but, just watching him and listening to him (without listening to any reportage), I think he's not half the man his son is. Where is his dignified bearing? Why didn't he have a prepared reaction to the engagement announcement - something that made him seem regal, dignified, FATHERLY, compassionate?

I really respect his work on the environment, but that's the work any rich man can do. I expect more from him - and I find that Prince William exceeds my expectations of someone so young, while Charles is finding new ways to make me disdain him - though I try to be charitable.

I will say that Camilla's reaction to the engagement was so enthusiastic, so genuine, so kind - thank god that Charles has her in his life.
 
I have had a chance to watch (several times), the reporter who first approached Prince Charles for his reaction to the announcement that his son was about to be married. His statement, something to the effect of, "Yes, it's obvious the announcement is true, they've been practicing at it long enough," or whatever he said with that disdainful look on his face was just another version of "ME, why isn't everyone asking about ME, why are you interrupted MY conversation about MY important topic to ask about that kid who is getting married."

Sorry, but that's what I saw - and I can't forgive him for it.

Every person that old has a history. Charles especially has a history of being sidelined by the media because of a lot of vain and in reality unimportant reasons like his first wife, the scandals, her fashion... everything at various points in his life was more important than his work. And he worls really hard and is dead serious about his causes. So no wonder he reacted that way when again something was more important than the topic he wanted to talk about.

BTW: I did not read his reaction in that negative way. When it comes to private things, Charles often is a bit sticky and stuffy. And especially then he is very "humourous"...
 
When I saw that comment from Charles I laughed as it was simply so true -they have been practicing for years.

It came across as a loving father having a bit of a joke at the expense of his son and fiancee.
 
It definitely changed. I still wouldn't say I'm a 100% fan of the couple. but have grown to realize that they love each other and she makes him happy.

In the end she's the one he chose, so it's time to move on. Even if I disagree with the way they handle their relationship while still married w/ others.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom