It's a bit too convenient, to me, to lay all of the responsibility of Camilla's reputation and past history on 'Diana Hagiographers'.
I lay precisely none of that responsibility there. However, the absurdity of this whole 'princess consort' affair is entirely and solely the result of pandering to the Diana worshippers. Unless someone can cite reputable sources which show that this has been done in the past? No? For crying out loud, even Henry VIII's multitude of wives were all called Queen. And there is simply no question that he was, shall we say, spreading his favours far and wide before, during, and after marriage.
In fact, it is
much more common for Royals to hop from bed to bed than most people are comfortable accepting. The idea of lifelong monogamy is relatively new in those circles. Indeed, the whole concept of Royal (and, to a somewhat lesser extent) noble marriages is that they represent the transaction of property, titles, and duty. Once the heir (and a spare) was begat, most historic royal/noble couples would then proceed to have their own liaisons on the side. Look at how many Dukedoms were provided to illegitimate--even adulterous--children, for example.
On some level even the most ardent Camilla worshipers will need to accept the fact that Camilla is responsible for her own decisions, own actions, her own reputation.
I'm neither a Camilla nor a Diana worshipper. I'm just sick of watching the Diana zealots continue to punish Camilla for something that, to be brutally frank, is much more Charles' responsibility than that of the two women involved. It takes two to tango, but it takes someone--in this case, the Heir to the Throne, who was deliberately abrogating his wedding vows--to get things started.
'Princess consort' is a nonsense. It is a title which means nothing. Not only that, but it absolutely contravenes centuries of Royal practice, tradition, and
law. Women take dignities from their husbands. Period. When a woman marries a man, she takes his title until divorce (and subsequent remarriage) or widowhood (in which case she would generally become the Dowager Title of Wherever). That's it. That's how it works. 'Princess consort' is a ridiculous made-up bit of foolishness meant as a sop to those who are unable to accept that not only did Diana behave as poorly as Charles, but that they were divorced and she subsequently died in a tragic accident. Frankly--and I know I'm ranging a bit far afield here--this cult of Diana serves to cheapen her memory and legacy, not to celebrate it; portraying her as the poor little victim of Charles and Camilla is to completely remove any agency she had over her own life. Or, to put it another way:
On some level even the most ardent Diana worshipers will need to accept the fact that Diana was responsible for her own decisions, own actions, her own reputation.
All of this handwaving about 'princess consort' is just that. As I have already pointed out, there is no precedent whatsoever for the title. As I have also pointed out, changing Camilla's title upon Charles' accession will require Acts of Parliament from all sixteen Commonwealth Realms. Every single one! Westminster may not act unilaterally in this case. And do you
really think that the Palace would like to give Australia (which currently has the strongest republican movement within the Commonwealth) the perfect opening to abolish the monarchy? Charles' Accession alone will be more than enough; a tempest in a teapot over his wife's title will practically guarantee a republican victory in Australia. For goodness' sake, the republican talking points practically write themselves: "Is this all the monarchy is good for? They force us to pass an Act of Parliament so that Charles can call his bit on the side a Princess! Vote for an Australian Republic and be done with this Royal ridiculousness!"
Seriously. This is so silly.
