Charles and Camilla: The Marriage (2005 and on)

[cdngirl]

There are an astonishing number of truly sick units out there which is why most normal forum users avoid wallowing in filth.

Could not have said it better myself. There is one person on Youtube who goes on every video about The Duchess or the POW and writes the most disgusting vile 'filth'. IMO you cannot form an opinion based on youtube/internet.

My point was scooter, is that time is moving on. Children growing up who really don't care or don't know anything about the history. I am just a bit older than PWilliam. I don't care about the history. I see it for what is it, skewed and one sided. Nothing EVER is just black and white. People move on, you forgive, you live your life the best you can. YOU MOVE ON!

 

[Princess Peach]

I personally think that Charles and Camilla make a wonderful couple, but I think it's true that most people don't think so. Most people however, don't follow royalty in the same way we do and don't see the tremendous support of Camilla and how she has benefited Charles and the family. It's a shame to me, but there it is.

What will allow Charles to take the throne, and Camilla to be at his side as legally the Queen but known by another title if the fact that MOST Britons and other members of the Commonwealth are looking forward to William and Kate. They're the real stars to most people. But I also think, and we're starting to see it now, is the very serious PR campaign to continue boosting Camilla's image.

It's also true (and I have mentioned this) that as time goes on, younger people don't really know who Diana was. 10 years from now and those under 25 will not even have been alive when Diana died, and how many others would have been just children? If Charles has his parents' and grandmother's longevity (and no reason to think he won't) he'll simply outlive having a majority who oppose his taking the throne.

 

[Daria_S]

Could not have said it better myself. There is one person on Youtube who goes on every video about The Duchess or the POW and writes the most disgusting vile 'filth'. IMO you cannot form an opinion based on youtube/internet.

My point was scooter, is that time is moving on. Children growing up who really don't care or don't know anything about the history. I am just a bit older than PWilliam. I don't care about the history. I see it for what is it, skewed and one sided. Nothing EVER is just black and white. People move on, you forgive, you live your life the best you can. YOU MOVE ON!

I think that these concepts are simply foreign to some people, and what I find rather amusing, is that the people who matter seem to have no issues with them whatsoever. I think that if William and Harry (and the rest of the Royal Family) were able to look past everything, then the public shouldn't be sitting there, and holding a grudge. It's not healthy to dwell on something that cannot be changed. You cannot turn back time, and fix whatever it is that is upsetting you today. Better to move on, and realize that the person who's right in front of you has a great deal to offer and deserves to be given a chance. Again, if the sons of the Prince of Wales were able to do this (and are doing it still), then there's no reason for the rest of us to obsess over 'what has been'.

 

[Princess Peach]

I think that these concepts are simply foreign to some people, and what I find rather amusing, is that the people who matter seem to have no issues with them whatsoever. I think that if William and Harry (and the rest of the Royal Family) were able to look past everything, then the public shouldn't be sitting there, and holding a grudge. It's not healthy to dwell on something that cannot be changed. You cannot turn back time, and fix whatever it is that is upsetting you today. Better to move on, and realize that the person who's right in front of you has a great deal to offer and deserves to be given a chance. Again, if the sons of the Prince of Wales were able to do this (and are doing it still), then there's no reason for the rest of us to obsess over 'what has been'.

Yes, Diana's own children are past this, and they are the ones who were on the frontlines. That was their mother, for crying out loud, but a few tabloid readers seem to be more emotionally invested, and suffer more angst over this than the two of them. That really tells me something. It really makes me shake my head when that same tabloid crown insists "the Palace made them say those things." I don't think so, first of all, and even if there was some pressure, they would not have expressed it in as glowing terms as they did if it were untrue. There's nothing in the boys' body language to suggest any of it were untrue.

 

[EIIR]

Of course Camilla will be Queen, of that I have no doubt. Charles announced an intended course of action in 2005 - that Camilla would be 'Princess Consort'. It's 7 years on now, and intended courses of action change all the time.

I suspect that, after the Queen's death, with the nation uniting in genuine grief and sympathy for the RF, a planted question will be asked in Prime Minister's Questions probably by a monarchist Conservative MP along the lines of 'Does the PM agree with me that, given the Duchess of Cornwall's X years of dedicated service to our late much-loved Queen and the nation as a whole, that she should take her rightful place alongside our new King at his coronation and henceforth be known as 'HM Queen Camilla'?'. All the PM needs to do is say that he agrees with his honourable friend, that Camilla has demonstrated her valuable support of our new King over the years, and that she should not be denied her rightful title of Queen. Cue the usual cries of 'hear, hear' from the mostly monarchist members. These sorts of planted questions, whether overtly planned or not, are very common in PMQs. That would be the signal for King Charles III to announce a change to his earlier intention that Camilla be 'Princess Consort'.

David Starkey has said the biggest ally that monarchies have in trying to survive into the future in inertia. Will everyone love the idea of Queen Camilla? No. Did everyone love the idea of Camilla marrying Charles in the first place? No. But ultimately, we've all got more pressing issues to worry about.

 

[teeyah]

Hello I have a question, I'm not sure if this is the place to post it. Is it true in 1994 Camilla's father warned Charles to stay away from her and her daughter Laura also screamed at Charles on the phone to stay away from Camilla?

 

[Kataryn]

Hello I have a question, I'm not sure if this is the place to post it. Is it true in 1994 Camilla's father warned Charles to stay away from her and her daughter Laura also screamed at Charles on the phone to stay away from Camilla?

I have never heard that Major Shand or Laura uttered one word to the media or an authorized biographer about their feelings of Charles' and Camilla's relationship. Thus no first hand source can exist for that story - thus probably made up or at least not proven.

 

[Osipi]

I have never heard that Major Shand or Laura uttered one word to the media or an authorized biographer about their feelings of Charles' and Camilla's relationship. Thus no first hand source can exist for that story - thus probably made up or at least not proven.

Actually I think both Tom and Laura have always had quite a good relationship with Charles. In fact, Charles is Tom Parker-Bowles godfather.
Recently in an interview, Tom had this to say:

" I know I probably shouldn’t ask, but is it true that he calls Prince Charles, his stepfather, Sir?

“Oh yes,” he says heartily. “But it’s not any sort of obligation, it’s just a nickname really, like Bob or Jim. When we were little, my mother would tell my sister and I that Sir was coming to visit, so the name stuck and to call him anything else would be very odd and unnatural.”


Prince Charles? I still call him Sir - Telegraph


It really seems like everyone gets along and everyone's happy with the way things are.

 

[Daria_S]

Yes, Diana's own children are past this, and they are the ones who were on the frontlines. That was their mother, for crying out loud, but a few tabloid readers seem to be more emotionally invested, and suffer more angst over this than the two of them. That really tells me something. It really makes me shake my head when that same tabloid crown insists "the Palace made them say those things." I don't think so, first of all, and even if there was some pressure, they would not have expressed it in as glowing terms as they did if it were untrue. There's nothing in the boys' body language to suggest any of it were untrue.

I think William and Harry are not the types to be 'told' what to say. They have enough sense to not embarrass themselves or their family, and the notion that the Palace would dictate what they should say in regards to their father's wife is nothing but ridiculous (or course the DM and other tabloids don't care if they come off looking like idiots, but that's besides the point). I feel that if either one of these men didn't feel respect towards Camila or disliked her in any way, they would not have said it outright, but would have been less than enthusiastic in terms of praising her.

 

[scooter]

Of course Camilla will be Queen, of that I have no doubt. Charles announced an intended course of action in 2005 - that Camilla would be 'Princess Consort'. It's 7 years on now, and intended courses of action change all the time.

I suspect that, after the Queen's death, with the nation uniting in genuine grief and sympathy for the RF, a planted question will be asked in Prime Minister's Questions probably by a monarchist Conservative MP along the lines of 'Does the PM agree with me that, given the Duchess of Cornwall's X years of dedicated service to our late much-loved Queen and the nation as a whole, that she should take her rightful place alongside our new King at his coronation and henceforth be known as 'HM Queen Camilla'?'. All the PM needs to do is say that he agrees with his honourable friend, that Camilla has demonstrated her valuable support of our new King over the years, and that she should not be denied her rightful title of Queen. Cue the usual cries of 'hear, hear' from the mostly monarchist members. These sorts of planted questions, whether overtly planned or not, are very common in PMQs. That would be the signal for King Charles III to announce a change to his earlier intention that Camilla be 'Princess Consort'.

David Starkey has said the biggest ally that monarchies have in trying to survive into the future in inertia. Will everyone love the idea of Queen Camilla? No. Did everyone love the idea of Camilla marrying Charles in the first place? No. But ultimately, we've all got more pressing issues to worry about.

Regardless of what you have doubts or suspitions or personal hopes about, this is all complete speculation and wishful thinking, unsupported by any facts or statistics or official statements from the BRF. At present, the official position is that she will be known as the Princess Consort, NOT Queen Camilla, regardless of how many years they are married at the time of QEII death. The women in the family seem to live to be a ripe old age. However,given how young the Windsor men have died historically ....George V 61, George VI 57, Edward VII 69.... it may be a moot point.

 

[Grandma828]

If I am not mistaken, Camilla will be Queen Consort the moment Charles becomes King, at least legally. Now if she will be crowned or not is another scenario. Also, whether she will use the title or be known as Princess Consort. After all, she is the Princess of Wales, but has chosen to be called Duchess of Cornwall. As to Charles's health, I think he takes very good care of himself.

 

[scooter]

Yes, he is well taken care of, however genetics and familial history are a strong factor in lifespan, as any doctor will tell you.

 

[NGalitzine]

Yes, he is well taken care of, however genetics and familial history are a strong factor in lifespan, as any doctor will tell you.

Well his father is 91 and his mother is 86........pretty good gene pool, especially since Charles also seems to live a physically active life and enjoys good health.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The problem with looking at the ages of the Windsor men is that doesn't take into account the fact that the ones listed didn't take care of their health.

George V - who lived to 71 - smoked and drank as did both his father and his son.

Charles doesn't do either of those - he has never smoked and rarely drank.

He has access to the best medical care possible and a father who is already 91.

 

[Kellydofc]

I have no doubt that Camilla will be Queen just as I have no doubt that she'll make a good one. No one I know personally in England has any problem with the idea of Camilla being Queen.
As for polls, as someone who spent months one summer calling people for them, please believe that the questions asked are skewed to get the results that the takers want. It was drummed into me again and again that you had to read the question exactly as written because changing one word could change the nature of the question and completely alter your results. It's usually best to look at many polls before trying to ascertain what people feel on any given topic.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I've heard the story about Laura yelling at Charles but it was over the phone and in the heat of the scandal involving their mother. I've never discovered if the incident really happened or not. No matter, people often talk about how those events effected William and Harry forgetting that Tom & Laura were also there and suffered as well. Laura & Tom were a few years older but I wonder if it was made easier for them because their parents remained friendly and respectful to each other.

 

[MARG]

You have hit the nail on the head. No one can confirm that the incident really happened or not. And it just keeps getting perpetuated by every person that repeats it, metaphorically scratches their head and yet again voices their "doubts". Asks themselves (and everyone else on the thread) whether Tom, Laura, William or Harry handled the situation the best or the worst or is damaged for life, etc. ad nauseum.

And that is the power of gossip, we all become unwitting participants in it's spread. Who needs the tabloids when we can do their job so efficiently for them?

 

[EIIR]

Regardless of what you have doubts or suspitions or personal hopes about, this is all complete speculation and wishful thinking, unsupported by any facts or statistics or official statements from the BRF. At present, the official position is that she will be known as the Princess Consort, NOT Queen Camilla, regardless of how many years they are married at the time of QEII death. The women in the family seem to live to be a ripe old age. However,given how young the Windsor men have died historically ....George V 61, George VI 57, Edward VII 69.... it may be a moot point.

Of course it's speculation. We all speculate constantly on these boards. My speculation is based on having lived in the UK through the engagement of Charles and Camilla, their wedding and their married life. It's based on having seen some pretty bitter people on the internet say, before their engagement that the British public would never accept Charles and Camilla getting engaged and married. They were wrong. We've also seen those same people say there would be protests, that the popularity of the monarchy would plummet, that no-one would turn up on Camilla's public engagements, that she would be confronted by unhappy citizens etc. etc. All that turned out to be untrue. Camilla's place as Charles's wife is secure and accepted. Her attendance at major national events is so normal now that it's not worthy of any raised eyebrows. Her relationships with the rest of the royal family appear comfortable and easy.

Crucially, the newspapers have begun to take to Camilla. I've seen editorials in The Times, The Telegraph, The Sun, and recently even the Daily Mail and Daily Express which have been incredibly supportive of Camilla and her position in the RF. Many of these papers have been utterly cruel to Camilla in the past. Charles has a satisfaction rating of 78% with the British public; the proportion of people wanting Charles to step aside and let William take the throne is down to 36%, and has been on a steady downward trend, even though William and Kate are personally very popular. The overall support for the monarchy is at 77-80%. Charles is more popular than ever.

We really don't have any up to date polling on whether the British public believe Camilla should be Queen or not. Understandably, the pollsters pretty exclusively concentrate on the overall support for monarchy, the popularity of the Queen and PoW, and whether Charles or William should be King when the Queen dies. The polling companies, and the organisations who commission the polls, obviously don't feel that Camilla's future role is of particular interest at the moment. It's that precise feeling of benign indifference, that I believe will allow the government of the day to recommend that Camilla be given the title of Queen, and the British public won't bat an eyelash.

 

[MARG]

Well perhaps we shall see, if Charles' attempts it. . . . . . . . . . . If he had come out and said 'It's going to be Queen Camilla and her crowned at my side' it might have been a bit dicey for Charles to stay first in line.

Well, it is possible that he may have been vying for first place as most unpopular Crown Prince/Prince of Wales in history, but he would still, and for alway stay, "first in line"!

Oh, I found the numbers from The Express quoting that "respected Angus Reid Polling organisation" having conducted a major survey of 5,520 people, and it's results, saying "the Queen's subjects in Britain and her two biggest overseas realms" wanted to jump the succession.

Now here in good old NZ, pop est 4,433,930, we don't think any survey relevant unless it polls over 1,000. So let's see how it stacks up:

Population of the United Kingdom: 62,262,000 est
Population of Canada: 34,865,700 est
Population of Australia: 22,678,444 est

OK, let's see if I have that right, 5,520 people? Out of how many?

You do the math!

 

[wbenson]

Now here in good old NZ, pop est 4,433,930, we don't think any survey relevant unless it polls over 1,000. So let's see how it stacks up:

Population of the United Kingdom: 62,262,000 est
Population of Canada: 34,865,700 est
Population of Australia: 22,678,444 est

OK, let's see if I have that right, 5,520 people? Out of how many?

You do the math!

Sample sizes don't need to be increased to take a larger population into account. A poll of 1,000 would have the same margin of error in just about every large population, and I'd bet that the reason the sample is so large is that they wanted to be able to break the results down by country. The average number of people surveyed in each country is 1,821, which is more than adequate (even better than the standard of 1,000 in New Zealand).

 

[Iluvbertie]

Of course polls can change.

The Express poll is dated 4th May but a month later Charles SHOULD be king say Brits who no longer want the crown to skip a generation | Mail Online

the view is that Charles should be next.

No doubt over the next 10 - 15 years there will be more polls going both ways.

 

[MARG]

The average number of people surveyed in each country is 1,821, which is more than adequate (even better than the standard of 1,000 in New Zealand).

1,000 from just over 4 million would, on the surface seem better, but it depends on the survey. Even The Express noted the poll questions were "weighted", presumably to achieve the desired result.

One does not have to be a rocket scientist to recognise that the way that a question is put, what is said, what is implied, what is omitted, all weigh on the outcome. I would venture to say that whilst the Internet is a well used medium, participation in online polls is going to depend on where they are aimed, how accessible they are and the "target" audience.

Needless to say that this poll, like the poll Iluvbertie has linked, reflect this difference and as Bertie says, there will be more polls and I would venture to guess the outcome will seesaw on until Charles becomes King or dies Prince of Wales.

 

[EIIR]

1,000 from just over 4 million would, on the surface seem better, but it depends on the survey. Even The Express noted the poll questions were "weighted", presumably to achieve the desired result.

One does not have to be a rocket scientist to recognise that the way that a question is put, what is said, what is implied, what is omitted, all weigh on the outcome. I would venture to say that whilst the Internet is a well used medium, participation in online polls is going to depend on where they are aimed, how accessible they are and the "target" audience.

Needless to say that this poll, like the poll Iluvbertie has linked, reflect this difference and as Bertie says, there will be more polls and I would venture to guess the outcome will seesaw on until Charles becomes King or dies Prince of Wales.

I'm sorry, but you've got this completely wrong. It is not the questions that are weighted, but the answers, depending on who actually completes the survey, and it is totally right and proper that they be weighted. This is to ensure that the published results properly reflect the population they seek to measure. Each polling company have huge panels (in the hundreds of thousands) whom they survey. The company knows all about these people - age, sex, class, location etc. etc, so they can send their surveys to as representative a sample as possible.

As a basic example as to why weighting has to happen, men comprise 48% of the electorate and women 52%. Suppose the raw figures, despite the pollsters' best efforts, contain 50% men and 50% women. The polling company will slightly "downweight" the replies given by the men (so that the replies of 50 men count as if they were 48) and slightly “upweight” the replies given by women (so that the replies of 50 women count as if they were 52). Of course it's not just gender that has to be considered, but also age, income, region among many others all have to be considered simultaneously.

The size of the poll is irrelevant, so long as it's not below about 500. The margin of error on a survey of 1,000 is just 3%. The vast majority of pollsters use a sample size of 1,000 to 2,000, so this particular poll of over 5,000 is actually much bigger than usual and would have a miniscule margin of error.

 

[scooter]

Sample sizes don't need to be increased to take a larger population into account. A poll of 1,000 would have the same margin of error in just about every large population, and I'd bet that the reason the sample is so large is that they wanted to be able to break the results down by country. The average number of people surveyed in each country is 1,821, which is more than adequate (even better than the standard of 1,000 in New Zealand).

Yes, random sampling...thank you wbenson!

 

[MARG]

I'm sorry, but you've got this completely wrong. It is not the questions that are weighted, but the answers, depending on who actually completes the survey, and it is totally right and proper that they be weighted. This is to ensure that the published results properly reflect the population they seek to measure. Each polling company have huge panels (in the hundreds of thousands) whom they survey. The company knows all about these people - age, sex, class, location etc. etc, so they can send their surveys to as representative a sample as possible.

As a basic example as to why weighting has to happen, men comprise 48% of the electorate and women 52%. Suppose the raw figures, despite the pollsters' best efforts, contain 50% men and 50% women. The polling company will slightly "downweight" the replies given by the men (so that the replies of 50 men count as if they were 48) and slightly “upweight” the replies given by women (so that the replies of 50 women count as if they were 52). Of course it's not just gender that has to be considered, but also age, income, region among many others all have to be considered simultaneously.

The size of the poll is irrelevant, so long as it's not below about 500. The margin of error on a survey of 1,000 is just 3%. The vast majority of pollsters use a sample size of 1,000 to 2,000, so this particular poll of over 5,000 is actually much bigger than usual and would have a miniscule margin of error.

And after all this explanation to the obviously ignorant . . . how does one explain the divergent response from the two surveys?

 

[Kataryn]

There's an old saying in Germany: never trust a survey you didn't fake yourself...

 

[MARG]

Our version, in this case courtesy of Wiki:
"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments. It is also sometimes colloquially used to doubt statistics used to prove an opponent's point.

 

[EIIR]

And after all this explanation to the obviously ignorant . . . how does one explain the divergent response from the two surveys?

I didn't mean to suggest that you're ignorant. It's a criticism people make of polls all the time - that the samples are too small to be representative, or that questions and answers are given different weightings to ensure a desired result. My point is, with the professional polling companies, that criticism is unfair.

There are many different reasons two polls, seemingly on the same topic, would have different results. With the best will in the world, no polling company can get it perfectly right all the time. Occasionally they will produce an exceptional poll which is an obvious 'outlier'. We also have to be careful that when we compare polls, we can be comparing polls by different companies, using slightly different methods, and asking slightly different questions.

Part of the problem is that, people change their minds. In addition, some people lie to or mislead polling companies. People can be more willing to be honest while taking an online poll, where they're sitting anonymously behind their computer screen, than they would be if polled in person or over the phone. Attitudes can also change in identical polls held even a few weeks apart, as people react to events happening in real time. All this is why I pay more attention to trends in polls, as opposed to individual poll results.

 

[Kataryn]

Part of the problem is that, people change their minds.

It is 100% sure that a lot of people will think differently about Charles as soon as he is the mourning new king. I can't imagine that there won't be all channels full with reports about Elizabeth and Charles as young mother and her baby, how this son grew up to make his mother proud... We'll see Camilla by Charles' side at the funeral... And you still believe that anyone will start a revolt against Camilla as Charles' queen consort? I don't think so. The media will take their cues from the palace and the government and their media relazion people will do what is decided and that, IMHO, is that the new king will want his wife recogniced as his queen.

 

[Osipi]

It is 100% sure that a lot of people will think differently about Charles as soon as he is the mourning new king. I can't imagine that there won't be all channels full with reports about Elizabeth and Charles as young mother and her baby, how this son grew up to make his mother proud... We'll see Camilla by Charles' side at the funeral... And you still believe that anyone will start a revolt against Camilla as Charles' queen consort? I don't think so. The media will take their cues from the palace and the government and their media relazion people will do what is decided and that, IMHO, is that the new king will want his wife recogniced as his queen.

You make some excellent points here. I do think that when HM does pass on, there's going to be mourning unlike any ever seen in the UK. It will not be mass hysteria as the shock of Diana's untimely death was, but more of a celebration of one of the UK's most outstanding and beloved monarchs.

I would bet my last doughnut too that Charles will want his wife crowned as Queen Consort by his side also. Perhaps its not the fact that public opinion of Camilla has changed but because of Camilla herself feeling comfortable in a role as Queen Consort. I've read in several places over the years where Camilla would have been quite happy if their relationship had stayed totally private but she did love Charles enough to buy a new bathing suit and jump in head first into the royal fishbowl. She was never forced to use another title but with good foresight, she decided to use Duchess of Cornwall which to me showed sensitivity to the late Diana and her sons and also it allowed her to create a public image that is solely her own on her own merits. Perhaps now after years of doing royal duties with Charles and on her own, she would feel comfortable as a Queen Consort. There's been several times the question has been put to her or Charles and the answer a vague "we'll see".

Regardless what ever does happen when the time does come, whatever title Camilla is known by, her main role remains the same as Charles' wife, friend and support. I don't really believe it would really matter to Camilla whether she was crowned or not. She's not in the fishbowl for her own self gratification and glory but happily swims along with the rest of the Firm for the greater good of the Firm.