Charles and Camilla: The Marriage (2005 and on)

[Nice Nofret]

.. I like Camillas way to age better than the poor Swedish Queen with her 'Joker'-Grin by now - her facelifts where blotched indeed. Silvia was so very lovely - but a husband with a rowing eye lets some women take bad decisions how to cope, I guess..

One can see, that Camilla is loved and happy - that is more attractiv to me, than a fake youthfull face. I can only wish every woman to be that happy in marriage, like she seems to be.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Perhaps, but how many women in their sixties do win beauty pageants?

I think Camilla looks very attractive for her age, and I like that she hasn't gone the celebrity route of cosmetic surgery and lipo.

Camilla wasn't a beauty in her 40 or her 50s. She was pretty when she was very young but age hit her hard. And btw I think Meryl Streep and Helen Mirren can give some young chicks a run for their money.
And why is there a need to try and insult Silvia just to make Camila look better?! There really is no need for that.
The only reason I brought up Camilla not being beautiful is in response to the poster who said they didn't like her because she is rough around the edges. Yes she is no beauty and hasn't been one for decades, but there is more to her than looks. That is all I was saying, no need to defend her or insult other royals.

 

[Daria_S]

...I know this has been commented on before, but the strength or character it must have taken to start performing public duties in her mid-fifties without knowing how she would be received must have been enormous. She has carried out her engagements with diligence, warmth and humour. She always appears to be well informed about the people and the organisations she meets and genuinely pleased to be there.

IMHO that is far more important than whether she has aged well or not.

Well said . I think it does take a strong person to be able to do what Camila is doing regardless of age, and I think she has done a beautiful job. You'd never guess that she has only been doing public engagements for seven years. I think Camila is a strong person to begin with, because no everyone can handle media attention, let alone negative media attention that was thrown at her earlier in her life. I also think that being in a happy and loving marriage boosted Camila's self-confidence, and that definitely shows. She is comfortable in her skin, knowing that the man she loves returns the sentiments and is proud of what she does.

...One can see, that Camilla is loved and happy - that is more attractiv to me, than a fake youthfull face. I can only wish every woman to be that happy in marriage, like she seems to be.

Bravo ! Camila's happiness and self-confidence, as well as the knowledge that she's loved by her husband make her far more attractive to me than a woman who may be called 'beautiful' due to her physical attributes alone. Camila's actions and attitude speak a lot louder than a glamourous appearance (and I think she's a very elegant woman, who can pull off 'big' jewelry like no one else ).

 

[Daz_Voz]

I was thinking about the fact the other day that it will have been quite a while since the monarch (or the heir) selected a non-royal consort.

Albert (later George VI) chose a bride who was not part of a royal family (Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, later Queen Elizabeth and subsequently the Queen Mother), but that was a bit different, as he was not heir to the throne and would have had no suspicion at the time of his wedding that he would one day be monarch.

Unless I am mistaken (and there's a decent case that I am mistaken), apart from that case, you would need to go back to the time of James II for a royal consort who was not born to a royal family, which is as much as to say that Elizabeth Bowes-Lyons is the only British royal consort not to have been born to a royal family, and if all goes as expected, the Duchess of Cornwall will be the second.

 

[Artemisia]

Unless I am mistaken (and there's a decent case that I am mistaken), apart from that case, you would need to go back to the time of James II for a royal consort who was not born to a royal family, which is as much as to say that Elizabeth Bowes-Lyons is the only British royal consort not to have been born to a royal family, and if all goes as expected, the Duchess of Cornwall will be the second.

Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon is indeed the only British consort, male or female, not t have come from a royal house.

James II never had a commoner consort though: his first wife, Anne Hyde, was indeed a commoner but she died long before his accession to the Throne. And in any case, James II and VII was King of England and Scotland, not Great Britain or the United Kingdom.

Th last non-royal consort of the Monarch was Lord Guildford Dudley, husband of Lady Jane Grey. Of course, Jane's brief reign is highly disputed.
The last undisputed non-royal consort of the Monarch was Catherine Parr, the sixth and final wife of Henry VIII. Of Henry's six wives only two, Catherine of Aragon and Anne of Cleves, were of royal origin.

Several English Kings opted to marry non-royal ladies, among them Anne Neville and Elizabeth Woodville,

 

[AdmirerUS]

For lack of a better place to put this - the Marriage Certificate of Charles/Camilla's wedding came up in another forum. It's interesting to compare The Duchess' signature then and now.

2005: http://latestonkateandwilliam.com/w...00_article-0-0267CE160000044D-852_634x286.jpg

2010: http://dianasjewels.net/C_Bracelets/H3882-L21311169_camilla.jpg

There's a lot of exuberance in the latter signature.

 

[MARG]

You are right. Camilla's signature on her wedding certificate shows a woman who signs documents (as most ordinary people do) neatly and legibly and I am sure it looked the same on her cheque book.

Now days Camilla gets to sign her name as an open public record or, as in the example, on documents such as thank you cards and letters. Now she has had time to become Camilla Duchess of Cornwall rather than just Camilla and exuberant certainly describes it.

I am not surprised by her signature as it seems to reflect her wonderfully uninhibited laughter and generally happy and uncomplicated approach to her life.

The more I see of her the more I really like her.

 

[Osipi]

The more I see of her the more I really like her.

It is the same here with me. Actually I think over the past couple of years and watching Camilla in action with and without Charles, she seems to me to exhibit a lot of traits that HM has.

Both her and Charles have also become very much more relaxed in their roles and its rare to see them photographed without a laugh or a smile on their faces.

 

[scooter]

It is the same here with me. Actually I think over the past couple of years and watching Camilla in action with and without Charles, she seems to me to exhibit a lot of traits that HM has.

Really? I cant think of two people more diametrically opposed in pretty much every aspect of their life and the way they have conducted it than QEII and C.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I too think she has a lot of the attributes of The Queen when on royal duties - she greets people, engages with them quickly, and makes them feel special without going all out. She comes across as a total natural at this, even though she came to it late in life. She could probably teach Kate a thing or two as Kate comes across as forced every time she appears with people - like she doesn't belong and knows it.

I see a lot of The Queen in Camilla - which may be part of the attraction for Charles.

 

[Dman]

I don't see any traces of The Queen in the Duchess of Cornwall but its interesting that some of you may see that. Camilla been training for her position for a longtime. Camilla was attending official engagements with Charles for a while before her marriage, so she's pretty used to the job.

I think The Duchess of Cambridge pretty much do a fine job on her royal duties. Even when Charles asked her to fill in for him at a reception at Clarence House, the guest expressed their amazement on how well she hosted the reception/dinner. I can tell she has gained a great deal of confidence on the job.

 

[Ish]

So, two hilarious (in my opinion) front pages for The Globe. One says "Queen Elizabeth The End!: Only months to live" and flags how "she'll NEVER see Kate's baby" and "Evil Camilla renews bitter battle for the throne." The other "Prince Charles Storms Out: After Camilla insults dying Queen," adding that "he flees to Switzerland" while "she stays home drunk."

 

[Dman]

I truly admired the late Princess of Wales and think she wasn't treated fairly but I do think everyone should move on and embrace the future.

I think if the deal is to name Camilla HRH The Princess Consort, then I think everyone should respect that. If the deal is to name Camilla Queen Consort, then I think that should be respected. Although, there is still a big mountain to climb when the time comes and I'm not really looking forward to that part. I can only imagine how Camilla feel and she's probably not looking forward to the media headache over her title.

 

[Skippyboo]

I don't think there will be a big deal about Camilla's title. When Charles is King, Camilla will be treated like the queen. She will be first in precedence . William, Harry and Kate will bow to her. For the first time for most of us, there will be a new monarch and all things that go with it. Are people going to make a big deal when Charles names William PoW and Kate becomes Princess of Wales? I hope not. It is her rightful title just like queen is for Camilla when Charles is King.

 

[Ish]

I don't think there will be a big deal about Camilla's title. When Charles is King, Camilla will be treated like the queen. She will be first in precedence . William, Harry and Kate will bow to her. For the first time for most of us, there will be a new monarch and all things that go with it. Are people going to make a big deal when Charles names William PoW and Kate becomes Princess of Wales? I hope not. It is her rightful title just like queen is for Camilla when Charles is King.

It has been stated once (when they got married) that she will be Princess Consort. This seems to sit well with people who continue to be vehemently against Camilla, and not so well with people who are more supportive, or have a more traditional view of British titles (or perhaps just a better understanding of them). I kind of think what Camilla's title ends up becoming will really just depend on how she and Charles are polling when the time comes.

As for the PoW title - Camilla does hold it, she just chooses not to use it. I can't see anyone making a fuss about it when Catherine begins to use it (assuming she ever gets to, PoWs are created, not inherited), as she has a very different history from Camilla. I always felt that if Charles had remarried someone other than Camilla there would have been far less fuss over the titles, it was just the specific person he married that people had a problem with (and in my opinion, unfairly so). The same could happen one day if William were to marry someone else, someone who wasn't popular with the people.

 

[MARG]

Bottom line, for Camilla not to be actually Queen (regardless of what they call her) they would need to enact a law in Parliament and if they are going to do that they are running out of time. Also, to pass such a law that would only apply to Camilla would be overtly, in your face, flat out discrimination and I am not sure how people feel about such a situation occurring. You would only need one person to apply to the European Court and . . .

Charles will be King (so long as he does not predecease his mother) and in the UK and the Commonwealth the King's wife is his Queen. It's some major tinkering with the history and fabric of the British Monarchy people are wittering about for no other reason that they don't "like" his wife. The Monarchy cannot allow itself to be twisted by such reasoning. It would cut to it's very raison d'être.

 

[Ish]

It's more complicated than that.

If they want to have her be consort but not Queen then they have to establish morganatic marriages within Britain. This was considered when Edward wanted to marry Wallis. It's not discrimination - it's merely an unequal marriage (which they have on the Continent). Unfortunately, it does go against about 1,000 years of British tradition.

If they want to continue on similar to how they are now, then they have to create a title for Camilla to use instead of Queen consort, for at this point one does not exist.

Bottom line is, we don't know which way they're going to go - Queen Consort, morganatic marriage, or a new title - until Charles becomes king (assuming both he and Camilla outlive the Queen). The whole debate is kind of up there with the Charles III/George VII thing. We can debate it until our faces turn blue, but there's minimal confirmed fact on the part of Charles and Camilla, so we can't say for sure until it actually happens.

 

[MARG]

It's more complicated than that.

If they want to have her be consort but not Queen then they have to establish morganatic marriages within Britain. This was considered when Edward wanted to marry Wallis.

It was "considered" by TPTB but it didn't happen.

It's not discrimination - it's merely an unequal marriage (which they have on the Continent).

If the law is changed to apply to Camilla and then revert to a future Queen Catherine then it is.

Unfortunately, it does go against about 1,000 years of British tradition.

And that is no small thing, more than that, after watching last night's magnificent lesson in the History of the British Monarchy at the SOOP, I find the very idea of tinkering with the institution itself totally repugnant.

 

[Ish]

It was "considered" by TPTB but it didn't happen.

I realize that.

If the law is changed to apply to Camilla and then revert to a future Queen Catherine then it is.

Not necessarily. It just depends on how they change it and how they justify it.

The monarch and consort are anointed by the church. In the eyes of the CoE, Camilla and Charles are not married owing to the fact that Camilla's ex-husband is still alive. The CoE doesn't recognize divorce, so therefore the two could not be married within the Church. If you then continue this logic, a woman who is not married to the king in the eyes of the Church cannot be crowned as the king's consort by said Church. In not crowning Camilla as Queen Consort they can establish a precedence - a monarch can divorce and remarry, or marry a divorced woman (or man), but if the marriage cannot take place in the church then the spouse doesn't get the big title. Thus, Camilla doesn't become a Queen owing to her first marriage, while Catherine does owing to her lack of a divorce.

Where it gets tricky is that there have been previous monarchs and consorts who have had multiple marriages - notably Eleanor of Aquitaine and Henry VIII - but as both had their marriages recognized by the church, the coronation becomes justified. Charles and Camilla have been blessed by the Church, but the Church itself still has the official divorce is a no-no stance.

And that is no small thing, more than that, after watching last night's magnificent lesson in the History of the British Monarchy at the SOOP, I find the very idea of tinkering with the institution itself totally repugnant.

I do agree with this completely. I don't want to see a regency set up simply because HM is old, I don't want to see Camilla be denied the Queen consort because of her divorce/Diana, I don't want to see Charles become George VII simply because of the Young Pretender... doesn't mean it won't necessarily happen.

 

[Osipi]

It has been stated once (when they got married) that she will be Princess Consort. This seems to sit well with people who continue to be vehemently against Camilla, and not so well with people who are more supportive, or have a more traditional view of British titles (or perhaps just a better understanding of them). I kind of think what Camilla's title ends up becoming will really just depend on how she and Charles are polling when the time comes.

IIRC, when Charles and Camilla married, one of the downsides for Camilla was doing public duties as a consort. She was a woman that prefers to stay out of the limelight and wasn't sure how well she would fit in to a public role. As I watched the SOOP earlier this morning, I had to think that she looked every inch a Queen Consort in waiting and is adapting very well to her public roles. It was Camilla's wish to be known as The Duchess of Cornwall and perhaps at the time she felt it may be better to be known as Princess Consort when Charles becomes King. I think most of the issue with titles and Camilla stem from her at the time of marriage and now 7 years down the line, those issues have practically disappeared.

 

[Ish]

IIRC, when Charles and Camilla married, one of the downsides for Camilla was doing public duties as a consort. She was a woman that prefers to stay out of the limelight and wasn't sure how well she would fit in to a public role. As I watched the SOOP earlier this morning, I had to think that she looked every inch a Queen Consort in waiting and is adapting very well to her public roles. It was Camilla's wish to be known as The Duchess of Cornwall and perhaps at the time she felt it may be better to be known as Princess Consort when Charles becomes King. I think most of the issue with titles and Camilla stem from her at the time of marriage and now 7 years down the line, those issues have practically disappeared.

The fact that it was Camilla's desire to be known as Duchess of Cornwall is something that makes me like her even more. I have no problem with her being known as the DoC because it doesn't present the same issues as Princess Consort would, and I think the fact that she chose to be known as such shows to me that she understands the tenderness of the public's feelings and the overall situation - she chose to be DoC instead of PoW because she realized that the people have this lasting memory of Diana, and she didn't want to tarnish it or appear to be trying to replace Diana. Or at least that's the way I understand it.

The issue of Princess Consort is a different one, though. For starters, from the moment those divorce papers were signed Diana was never going to be Queen Consort. For Camilla to not use that title out of deference to Diana is unnecessary. Then there's the fact that while the PoW has other titles for his consort to use, the King doesn't. In order to make Camilla Princess Consort they would have to actually make the title, it's not one that exists in the UK. They also have to determine if she's Queen and Princess Consort but just using the lesser title, or if she's not Queen - in which case morganatic marriages are created in the UK. All of this establishes a very tricky precedent and does a lot of damage to tradition.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Blair confirmed just before the wedding that for her to be anything other than Queen will take legislation.

I really can't see the parliament immediately sitting on the day the death of The Queen is announced to debate and pass a new law to strip her of the title Queen Camilla and replace it with Princess Consort and ask Charles to sign that as his first piece of legislation.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The monarch and consort are anointed by the church. In the eyes of the CoE, Camilla and Charles are not married owing to the fact that Camilla's ex-husband is still alive. The CoE doesn't recognize divorce, so therefore the two could not be married within the Church. If you then continue this logic, a woman who is not married to the king in the eyes of the Church cannot be crowned as the king's consort by said Church. In not crowning Camilla as Queen Consort they can establish a precedence - a monarch can divorce and remarry, or marry a divorced woman (or man), but if the marriage cannot take place in the church then the spouse doesn't get the big title. Thus, Camilla doesn't become a Queen owing to her first marriage, while Catherine does owing to her lack of a divorce.


Where it gets tricky is that there have been previous monarchs and consorts who have had multiple marriages - notably Eleanor of Aquitaine and Henry VIII - but as both had their marriages recognized by the church, the coronation becomes justified. Charles and Camilla have been blessed by the Church, but the Church itself still has the official divorce is a no-no stance.



I do agree with this completely. I don't want to see a regency set up simply because HM is old, I don't want to see Camilla be denied the Queen consort because of her divorce/Diana, I don't want to see Charles become George VII simply because of the Young Pretender... doesn't mean it won't necessarily happen.

The church DID recognise the marriage - that is what the blessing was all about - giving the marriage official church recognition. The person who did that was the Archbishop of Canterbury who would have done so knowing there was a chance he could be asked to Crown them both (he has now retired) but he blessed them thus giving the formal recognition of the church to their marriage.

The church does recognise divorce - changed its stance on divorce in 2000 and will even marry divorced persons now (unless one of the partners had contributed to the breakdown of the marriage of the other - e.g. if Camilla had decided to marry someone besides Charles she would have been able to remarry in the CoE as would Charles had he decided to marry someone else other than Camilla - and even that isn't hard and fast as CoE ministers make that decision on a case by case basis - my own minister told me that first off he would have refused to marry Charles and Diana as they hadn't been a couple for long enough to get married - he always insisted on at least a two year period from meeting to wedding with a year's engagement - but he would have had no problem marrying Charles and Camilla as he believed that they should have always been together).

 

[sndral]

One thing that strikes me is the huge break with tradition happening right now - abandoning male primogeniture. Presumably the Royals are doing so because choosing a younger male child over his older sister is no longer appropriate. Given this, then why should Prince Phillip not be called King consort or Camilla Princess Camilla (like Prince Phillip was titled.)
I'm not advocating this, just pointing out that the royals are changing the rules at this time, so anything is possible, IMO.

 

[Lumutqueen]

One thing that strikes me is the huge break with tradition happening right now - abandoning male primogeniture. Presumably the Royals are doing so because choosing a younger male child over his older sister is no longer appropriate. Given this, then why should Prince Phillip not be called King consort or Camilla Princess Camilla (like Prince Phillip was titled.)
I'm not advocating this, just pointing out that the royals are changing the rules at this time, so anything is possible, IMO.

Camilla can hold the title Queen Consort, it ranks lower than King. There has never been a King Consort in the UK and at 90+ I doubt Philip cares.

 

[Ish]

One thing that strikes me is the huge break with tradition happening right now - abandoning male primogeniture. Presumably the Royals are doing so because choosing a younger male child over his older sister is no longer appropriate. Given this, then why should Prince Phillip not be called King consort or Camilla Princess Camilla (like Prince Phillip was titled.)
I'm not advocating this, just pointing out that the royals are changing the rules at this time, so anything is possible, IMO.

A male consort to a female monarch do not receive any title automatically because a man does not receive his wife's titles, regardless of what they are, upon marriage.

Consider: John Smith and Jane Doe get married. Jane then becomes Mrs. John Smith, while John remains Mr. John Smith. Jane may chose to remain Jane Doe - either as Ms. or Mrs. - but John will not become Mr. Jane Doe.

The title Prince Consort was a title created specifically for Prince Albert; it has not been used by any other male consort of a British monarch, all the rest have continued to use whatever other titles they already held. Prince Philip is titled "Prince" because he was created a Prince of the United Kingdom in his own right by his wife.

 

[VictoriaB]

I realize that.

The CoE doesn't recognize divorce, so therefore the two could not be married within the Church.

The Church of England does recognise divorce and did at the time Charles and Camilla married - from their offical website - Divorce

A friend of mine is a CofE vicar. He was divorced, remarried in the Church and promoted to Canon. As the website says, it depends on the circumstances and the individual priest. I would wager had it been Mr Windsor wanting to marry Mrs PB, there would have been a priest quite prepared to do it. In this case, being who he was worked against Charles.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Personally I think the whole thing, including the FAQ response is a political move to shut people up. Charles has gone through what seems like, hell and back to marry Camilla and to think he's not going to want her styled as his rightful Queen doesn't fit. I don't know anyone in the UK that's going to bother to waste their time "rioting" over this, the Dianaphiles, the usual DM moaners and probably the Republic party are going to moan. But that is a tiny minority of the British population, the majority of which don't care.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Camilla is Princess of Wales and she will officially be Queen Consort. Tactfully Camilla chose to use another of her titles to distanced herself from Diana. Clever move.

The wedding day was 8 years ago, people's opinions have changed and even to Diana followers they accept that Camilla is doing a good job and makes Charles happy in his role. A year before the marriage an opinion poll showed that more people approved of the marriage than disapproved, however the majority of people didn't care.

The "Princess Consort" thing came from Clarence House, never a quote from Charles himself. At the time of the marriage it was a political move, which they more than likely hoped would be forgotten. Why it's on the royal website, I do not know. I bet this came from the same PR guy who did the whole "Charles wants to slim down the monarchy" crap.

 

[Jacknch]

Obvioulsy I think Camilla ought to be able to be titled Queen when the time comes, but I accept the fact that HER preference at the moment is for Princess Consort.

The fact that it is still officially intended that Camilla will be titled Princess Consort when Charles becomes king points to the obvious fact that Charles and Camilla are happy with the arrangement, have been since the original announcement was made and will continue to be in the future.

Apart from here on TRF, there is no debate at all about Camilla's titles and if it is announced at some point in the future that her title will change to Princess of Wales and be Queen in the future, then that is the prerogative of the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall and we as a nation will happily accept it (and if some don't then that's tough because it is not up to them, us or anyone else!).

As for legislation allowing the Princess Consort title, so be it, let it be done.