Title for Camilla

[scooter]

And you know this how? Have you perhaps met her and discussed the role with her, is there a book we can read to judge her by?

Here we go again. What book or author do you accept as being truthful and accurate Skydragon? Because you make a career on this board of arguing every quote from every book that is anything other than a glowing review of Charles and Camilla. Once again you are back to 'nothing other than a statement from Charles or Camilla is definative'...because they dont have an axe to grind, right....

 

[branchg]

Ah, but the King of the UK can't override the wishes of the majority of the people. If people are really opposed to a Queen Camilla in 10 years time--which I doubt--Charles might find some the Prime Minister knocking on his door with urgent business.

Exactly. There is no doubt Charles will have no choice in the matter. If the public is opposed, the Prime Minister will advise the Crown, which is compelled to accept it.

Since Camilla has already made it clear she wishes to be HRH The Princess Consort, rather than Queen, it would seem Charles will once again have to learn to get in touch with reality.

 

[wbenson]

Exactly. There is no doubt Charles will have no choice in the matter. If the public is opposed, the Prime Minister will advise the Crown, which is compelled to accept it.

I don't think they would be so greatly opposed for the government to be concerned about it without a pretty big scandal moving that opinion. The most opposition I can see right now is around 60% of people somewhat mildly being opposed, most of whom will stop caring by the time the sun sets.

 

[Madame Royale]

I don't think they would be so greatly opposed for the government to be concerned about it without a pretty big scandal moving that opinion. The most opposition I can see right now is around 60% of people somewhat mildly being opposed, most of whom will stop caring by the time the sun sets.

Which would be (is ?) quite the percentage of people, whether mildly opposed or otherwise. That's not something that could be blindly overlooked in any way, shape or form. 10 years from now, who knows how people will react to the likeliness of a Queen Camilla, but let us not dismiss, though none of us know for certain (only what is intended) what infact HRH wants and it could very well be that Camilla wishes to be known as HRH the Princess Consort.

I don't claim to know what will happen when their time comes, or the mood that'll ensue, but if Charles were to succeed tomorrow (of course that won't be happening), then Princess Consort I believe she'd be.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Here we go again. What book or author do you accept as being truthful and accurate Skydragon? Because you make a career on this board of arguing every quote from every book that is anything other than a glowing review of Charles and Camilla. Once again you are back to 'nothing other than a statement from Charles or Camilla is definative'...because they dont have an axe to grind, right....

But Scooter, even you know that there are a lot of unreliable books around and that one should be careful with wordings that need a direct counterstatement from the person featured if it is untrue - especially when the person featured is known not to do that. Sentences like: "Charles knew in his heart that..." or the content of a dialogue where only two people were present and none of them ever talked about it. It is so easy to mix fact with fiction, especially when it comes to biographies and the fact that it is printed does not mean that it's true.

As I guess most people here are more interested in the facts than the fiction I at least second Skydragon's questioning of sources and quotes.

 

[Menarue]

I "third" her questioning.

 

[MARG]

Originally Posted by princessistanbul
She's not fit for "Queen" title

And you know this how? Have you perhaps met her and discussed the role with her, is there a book we can read to judge her by?

Four pages on and still the question remains! Why?

Here we go again. What book or author do you accept as being truthful and accurate? . . . . . Once again you are back to 'nothing other than a statement from Charles or Camilla is definative'...because they dont have an axe to grind, right....

Truthful: veracious, lifelike, natural, true, aboveboard, accurate, candid, factual, frank, honest, ingenuous, open

Accurate: correct, exact, faithful, precise, right, rigorous, true, veracious, authentic, authoritative, authorized, certain

Definitive: authoritative, conclusive, decisive, final, absolute, complete, explicit, specific, actual, categorical, clear-cut, definite

or, to put it bluntly;

Factual: correct, genuine, literal, objective, real, true, absolute, actual, certain

Any further questions?

 

[Skydragon]

Here we go again. What book or author do you accept as being truthful and accurate Skydragon? Because you make a career on this board of arguing every quote from every book that is anything other than a glowing review of Charles and Camilla. Once again you are back to 'nothing other than a statement from Charles or Camilla is definative'...because they dont have an axe to grind, right....

Did you read the post, because it would appear not from your reply, (what quote, what book am I disagreeing with and where on earth does it say anything about a definitive statement from anyone?)
for your edification I repeat it here -

I hope only Duchess... all time
She's not fit for "Queen" title

to which I replied

And you know this how? Have you perhaps met her and discussed the role with her, is there a book we can read to judge her by?

However IF you know of a book giving details on what constitutes being fit to have Queen title, I am sure we would all love to hear about it!

 

[jcbcode99]

There's more at stake than people wanting to see Charles and Camilla humiliated on Diana's account.

Well, Elspeth, I think you have summed up, exceptionally well might I add, one of the Great Debates on The Royal Forums--we may as well close the thread now

 

[muriel]

Well, Elspeth, I think you have summed up, exceptionally well might I add, one of the Great Debates on The Royal Forums--we may as well close the thread now

Fair point, and very well said!

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

I wonder what title Camilla would choose for herself. If the decision was only hers (hypothetically, of course) and depended on nothing except her own personal wish, what would be her title in that case? It would be interesting to hear her answer. What is her preference? Somehow, I imagine that if she could choose, she wouldn't choose to be a queen. She would do it of course, for Charles, but if it was only for her, I am guessing she would choose not to be queen.

 

[branchg]

Well, the decison to use her ducal style as Duchess of Cornwall, rather than her senior title as Princess of Wales, was Camilla's own. And she announced through Clarence House before they married her wish to be known as HRH The Princess Consort when the time came.

I tend to think Charles is the one pushing for Queen Consort no matter what. I think she prefers to have a more private role.

 

[wbenson]

I don't think anyone who really and truly yearned for the title of Queen would be very good at the job, myself.

 

[Menarue]

I think that one of the main reasons that Prince Charles and Camilla get on so well together is that she accepts his decisions and respects his wishes. If he wants her to be Queen she will agree of that I have no doubt.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

Well, the decison to use her ducal style as Duchess of Cornwall, rather than her senior title as Princess of Wales, was Camilla's own. And she announced through Clarence House before they married her wish to be known as HRH The Princess Consort when the time came.

I tend to think Charles is the one pushing for Queen Consort no matter what. I think she prefers to have a more private role.

I still wonder if it is true that the Duchess style was her decision. The official statements stated that was the case, but it doesn't mean it was all her decision without very strong persuasion. I don't know what the truth is. At the time of her marriage and saying she wanted to be known as Duchess of Cornwall, etc. I thought I smelled the influence of CH press office, as if giving her the slightly diminished style somehow, in their minds, made the marriage "okay", or they just didn't want to encourage comparisons to the former Princess of Wales. Sometimes I have thought CH has actually been working to "keep" Camilla in her place because, maybe, they fear she will become "bigger than life" like Diana and they suppose it might go to her head. Maybe it's all nonsense, but these are only some of my thoughts on the matter. In any case, I feel sorry for Camilla. It is a tight rope she has to walk. It is so hard to go about your business with the whole world judging you. It must feel like sometimes she cannot win no matter what.

 

[georgiea]

Sometimes I have thought CH has actually been working to "keep" Camilla in her place because, maybe, they fear she will become "bigger than life" like Diana and they suppose it might go to her head. Maybe it's all nonsense, but these are only some of my thoughts on the matter. In any case, I feel sorry for Camilla. It is a tight rope she has to walk. It is so hard to go about your business with the whole world judging you. It must feel like sometimes she cannot win no matter what.

I agree with you CasiraghiTrio. I think that is why she keeps her own home to escape to every once in a while.

 

[Thomasine]

Respect for Princes William and Harry

I think Camilla choose the title Duchess of Cornwall out of respect for the Princes William and Harry. She did not want to be known under the same title that the Princes' deceased mother was known and still held at the time of her death.

In my opinion that says a lot about Camilla and it should actually render her more respect from all those Diana admires that take every opportunity to criticise Camilla. Leave her alone and let her grow into her role at her own pace, she may be a pleasant surprise and an added value to the Monarchy.

As I have pointed out on another thread on the Royal Forums, non of us probably know either Charles, Diana or Camilla and all the problems and issues involved in the marriage and should be carefull to pass moral judgement. Numerous books and articles have emerged in the wake of the divorce, death of Diana and remarriage and none of them tells the whole story because the books and articles have not been written by persons involved in their own words.

Weather her title upon Charles accession should be Queen Consort or Princess Consort, I leave to them to decide when the time comes.

 

[Iluvbertie]

As I have pointed out on another thread on the Royal Forums, non of us probably know either Charles, Diana or Camilla and all the problems and issues involved in the marriage and should be carefull to pass moral judgement. Numerous books and articles have emerged in the wake of the divorce, death of Diana and remarriage and none of them tells the whole story because the books and articles have not been written by persons involved in their own words.

Getting the story from one of those three people won't give the 'whole' story either.

It will give one person's view and nothing more. It would be less accurate than anything we have now as at least the current versions try to look at all the antogonists actions and account for them, even with a usually strong bias towards one side or the other. A version by one of these people would only give one side of the issue and could never do more as it is one person's version only.

To get the 'full story', if that is even possible, will take quite a few years as historians will need to be able to access all the documents, versions of events, documentaries, interviews etc ever given to find out what each of them were saying and doing to get some idea of the truth.

Personally I wouldn't expect to see a really good, relatively accurate version of events for about another 100 years or so, when we are all dead, but historians are able to write from a more distant viewpoint and access all the relevant material.

 

[scooter]

Well, Elspeth, I think you have summed up, exceptionally well might I add, one of the Great Debates on The Royal Forums--we may as well close the thread now

Why must everything be about Diana? Is it not possible that some people dont like/respect Charles and Camilla because of certain past behavior? I would list the well documented past behavior I am talking about, but a moderator indicated that it might cause TRF to be sued. I certainly wouldnt want that. So you will have to content your self with this: There was a transcript published all over the world...CNN, ITV, FOX, BBC.... And lets just say that there is an audio recording, so there is no doubt of those persons involved.

 

[scooter]

And you know this how? Have you perhaps met her and discussed the role with her, is there a book we can read to judge her by?

Funny how you left this part out of your reply. Have you perhaps met Camilla and discussed the roll with her that you are an authority? It seems we are back to the 'is there a statement from Camilla' otherwise it's giggles and whistles. Are there books to judge her by, yes, most of them in my library! But you keep posting that you dont consider them truthful. I find this very interesting. These books have been exhaustively vetted for libel. Yet you continually question their veracity.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

Thomasine and Iluvbertie both make good points and they are each right in their own way. Iluvbertie wrote from the historical perspective, using the historical method, which is important for its own sake. And Thomasine wrote from a very thoughtful, compassionate, well-meaning viewpoint that should never be discounted. Thanks to both of you for sharing your perspectives.

Thank you also, branchg, for tackling my musing about Camilla's own wishes.

 

[jcbcode99]

Why must everything be about Diana? Is it not possible that some people dont like/respect Charles and Camilla because of certain past behavior? I would list the well documented past behavior I am talking about, but a moderator indicated that it might cause TRF to be sued. I certainly wouldnt want that. So you will have to content your self with this: There was a transcript published all over the world...CNN, ITV, FOX, BBC.... And lets just say that there is an audio recording, so there is no doubt of those persons involved.

Elspeth, I would like to preface this by saying I'm only answering a question which as been put to me and am not deliberately inciting a riot or what-have-you here so please don't fuss on me...

Scooter, you ask why must everything be about Diana--and the answer is quite simple: because in the past everything has been about Diana, or rather those that continue to believe they speak for her. While I do think that Camilla choosing to use the Duchess of Cornwall title had more to do with her respect for the memory of her step-children, I also think that pressure from the Diana-its (who made it all about Diana--loudly) did cause the cave from Clarence House. I also think that if Camilla does instead become known as HRH The Princess Consort it will be because of pressure and outcries from those who continue to make it all about Diana. I am not discounting Diana's role as the mother of the future monarch, or her place in history, but to decide that Camilla cannot be Queen because, inadvertently, of Diana, is really a touch trivial. More important things are at stake here than the memory of a divorced spouse of the British Royal Family--precedence, tradition, and the law. I think that it is a clear cut thing right now--if Charles ascends she becomes Queen by right of marriage. In order to make it anything less requires letters patents, laws, meetings, etc..... it is all entirely too complicated and tricky.

 

[Elspeth]

Why must everything be about Diana? Is it not possible that some people dont like/respect Charles and Camilla because of certain past behavior? I would list the well documented past behavior I am talking about, but a moderator indicated that it might cause TRF to be sued. I certainly wouldnt want that. So you will have to content your self with this: There was a transcript published all over the world...CNN, ITV, FOX, BBC.... And lets just say that there is an audio recording, so there is no doubt of those persons involved.

You mean, certain past behaviour that didn't have anything to do with Diana? This would be past behaviour pre-1980, presumably. If it was behaviour after the Wales marriage, then of course it had to do with Diana.

 

[Elspeth]

Elspeth, I would like to preface this by saying I'm only answering a question which as been put to me and am not deliberately inciting a riot or what-have-you here so please don't fuss on me...

Elspeth, the British Forum terrorist....

oh what joy

 

[jcbcode99]

Wicked funny!

Elspeth, the British Forum terrorist....

oh what joy

 

[Menarue]

I think most British people when the time comes will be saying Long Live King Charles and Queen Camilla. There will be commemorative cups, saucers and plates on every sideboard saying just that.
As the wife of the King she will have every right to be called Queen and after waiting for so long to marry him it is only right that she should be.
By the time that comes, we hope, some people will be asking "Who was Diana?".

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think most British people when the time comes will be saying Long Live King Charles and Queen Camilla. There will be commemorative cups, saucers and plates on every sideboard saying just that.
As the wife of the King she will have every right to be called Queen and after waiting for so long to marry him it is only right that she should be.
By the time that comes, we hope, some people will be asking "Who was Diana?".

Kids who have entered High School in the last year or so are already asking that as they were too young to know anything about her in a conscious way.

If the Queen lives another 10 years then people of voting age won't have a conscious memory of Diana. To these young people Camilla will be the only wife of Charles they know and they will be asking why isn't she Queen. From my experience of dealing with some of them on a daily basis they are very concerned about equality for women and justice for all.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

LOL!!

I cannot believe this thread has reached 4 parts. She is all the titles, legally and historically. She will be Queen consort automatically UNLESS some law is repealed or changed, etc.......that is....how it is.

I am not a fan of the woman by any means, but the laws and precedence stand above my own personal view.

 

[Lilla]

Thanks Lady Marmalade, for this precise statement regarding her title

 

[ada]

What happened to the title 'Princess Consort' The public didn't come up with that one, the royals did. When was the latest confirmation from CH that D of C would be known as the 'Princess Consort', are they going to deny it or break their promise.