Camilla and The Public


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I don't see Countess' statement as anything but stating her perception that the ordinary folks going about their ordinary lives don't really pay that much attention to the royal family. It would be similar to me stating that, for the most part, the average US citizen probably couldn't name Obama's daughters. The average American could care less what his daughter's names are.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MARG, can I ask you something since you come from New Zealand. I saw a debate a year ago between royalists and republicans from New Zealand, where an elderly man said the most ridiculous things. Do you know who I mean? I think he was a businessman, seemed completely crazy.
 
:previous: Oh that! It happens every time we have an impending Royal Visit. One of the TV stations will invite these academic republicans to share their enlightened self interest with the rest of us plebs or worse invite several to have a debate which, since they are all anti-royalists, is a hoot as they try to be the baddest and the best instead of their reality of Meh!

To be honest I don't know where they get them from but they sure don't share the same planet or country as me, my family and friends. They are however, endlessly entertaining in their earnest endeavours to bring us all over to the dark side or invite us to join them in La La Land via the great Prozac express, so great is their self interest.

New Zealand Republic chairman Savage said he was not worried by the slight shift in support toward a British head of state.

"What we think happens is people get carried away looking at the popularity or interest people show in the royal couple, but that doesn't properly relate to what the head of state debate is about," he said.

The Department of Internal Affairs released last month the cost of the 10-day tour, putting the taxpayer bill at $1,035,000.

Most New Zealanders like value for money and we don't have to overtax our brains to do the basic arithmetic required to ascertain that an elected El Presidente would cost us a darned sight more than $1,035,000 every single year.
 
You may just not be looking. Globe is a US tabloid and I frequently see Queen is dying and Camilla is trying to steal the throne-esque front pages on it.


That's the one I see when I am in line at the store.
 
The CoE is very much a living, breathing entity.

In the 1560s there was no way that a woman could ever even hold the title 'Head of the Church of England' and so had to be 'Supreme Governor' but as recently as within the last 24 hours the Church of England Synod in the UK has voted to allow women to become bishops - and thus even, in time, no doubt Archbishop of Canterbury.

The church is changing its teachings and practices to reflect the modern world all the time and there would no reason for any Archbishop of Canterbury to refuse to crown Charles other then his own personal prejudice against divorced persons which would be huge backward step for the church and the nation as divorced persons are every in society.

Camilla is changing people's attitudes every time she goes out and meets new people. The die-hards will never change and that is their privilege and right but more and more people are changing - a majority of the nation I can't say but pretty well almost every article about her refers to someone who has changed their views on her as a person and as a royal - as they have met her in person.

I have a personal story on this issue - my brother and his wife attended three functions with Diana on her various trips down under (my sister-in-law worked with Dr Chang - the heart surgeon and so was a various events when Diana was helping his work etc) and they both admired her - my brother more than my sister-in-law but that is another story. He was totally against Camilla and thought her a 'nasty, very nasty woman' until he met her in person when she went to the Melbourne Cup. She made a point of asking to meet the press involved in covering the cup and spent time talking to each and every one of them - now my brother had also meet her during the London Olympics but hadn't had much of a chance to speak to her - he was 'presented' to her and then she moved on but...at the Melbourne Cup she greeted him as an 'old friend' and commented on some of his work from the London Olympics and other work that he had done - she mad him feel as if she a) knew who he was as a real person and b) knew the range and nature of his work and actually went out of her way to get his coverage of sporting events. (Whether she actually does is probably not the case but it was the way she talked to him about his work that made him 'feel' that she did). He was very impressed as Diana never made that connection, even to his wife, who worked on one of her pet projects. Now he still admires Diana but is totally in the Camilla camp - as she 'really makes the people she is meeting feel as if they are people she cares about and follows' while Diana 'was more skin deep - cared about the causes but not the little' people involved and only the very, very top people'.

There are many others who have done the same thing - still admire Diana but have come to realise that Camilla isn't and wasn't the devil incarnate at all but more that they are and were two women with flaws and good points and that both can be admired and supported without having to play one off against the other.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for that interesting story. Seems that Camilla certainly went above and beyond, IMO with your brother which is really good. Possibly Diana would have been able to acquire the same skills if she lived as ling as Camilla.
 
Iluvbertie,
Thanks for sharing your story.

Camilla always talks to people as if she has always known them. She might have inherited her family's gift. Her grandfather, Roland Cubitt and her nephew, Ben Elliot had/have photographic memory.

Camilla might remember everything about someone she briefly met so when she meets them again she talks to them as if she has always known them.
 
Where did u hear members or her family had photographic memories? I have never read a biography that went that deep into her family.
 
Roland's tributes at the time of his death.

Articles about Ben Elliot.
 
I too, am a committed Anglican, and have no problem with the remarriage in Church by divorced persons...
 
There is no organised anti-Camilla lobby in the UK. It doesnt make the press - my assumption is there is a minority who for moral/religious/cranky/Diana/"just-anti" reasons may speak out.

But Camilla only comes forward because she is Charles' wife. Charles is popular (although not the most popular) and there has been a real shift in favour of him becoming king. Certainly a preference for him over William. Everyone knows that means Camilla by his side. So to me that is an indicator that she is already accepted by the UK public.

(I've reread this and I hope it makes sense :) )
 
I don't understand how they can't influence public opinion--they ARE members of the public.
Wether you understand it or not, i assure this is the case, and i'm sure other UK citizens {and subjects!} will back me up on this...

The numbers of people who have a problem with Camilla are reducing as each day passes [Opinion polls recently showed a majority in favour of her becoming Queen Consort,on her husbands accession.]
In any case.. the Succession is NOT a popularity contest, the rules are laid down BY LAW, and it would take the simultaneous changing of that law [in 15 countries !] to deny Camilla her legitimate rights as Queen.
Since no legislation is in prospect [here or elsewhere], new legislation would have to be initiated in the aftermath of the current monarchs death, and with a country, and world grieving that loss, it is unthinkable that such a insult would be offered [by HIS government] to the new, bereaved King [who will be buoyed by a groundswell of public sympathy.]
 
Last edited:
...(I've reread this and I hope it makes sense :) )
It does make sense and thanks for your intelligent response. I am not sure if it is organized, but I sense the media is anti-Camilla--at least the tabloid media is. I don't think the opposition is grounded in religion though. I expect the media will do its best to stoke opposition when the time comes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually the media are not anti-Camilla IMO. I look at the majority of UK papers on line most days and anti-feeling is not raised. The trend is that Camilla is good at her job, they like her causes (including taking on sensitive issues such as rape-victim support and the fight against FGM) and they really like that she is good for Charles.

This is not the same in the US where I understand there is anti-Camilla press. But that does not have an impact here at home.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Digressing briefly, a very happy 67th birthday to Camilla!
 
According to the 2011 Census, 59.3% of the UK population class themselves as christian, down from 71.7% in the 2001 census.

According to the Church of England 1 million people participate in a service on any ordinary Sunday. That is out of a population of 63.23 million (so about 1.6% of the population).

As always, statistics can be questioned. For example there are some (a minority) who attend Church more than once on any given Sunday and so would be counted twice. I would also question how many of the 1 million are children who have been taken by a parent rather than making a conscious decision to attend based on faith. There will be those who will have responded to the census that they are Christian but who do not have any real attachment to the faith or understanding of what the Church believes in.

If there is an opposition to Camilla based on religious grounds then I can't see it as being a significant portion. Of course, religion has been used to justify just about anything from war on downwards. My personal belief is that the vast majority of any opposition to Camilla is based on the media reporting of the breakdown of the marriage of the Prince and Princess of Wales and nothing more. For the majority, any reliance on religion is just an excuse and if it weren't available they would justify their position in some other way.
 
I understand your point but, as I pointed out before, virtually every religion, including Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Sikhism prohibit adultery. So although 59.3% consider themselves Christian, there are people of other faiths who have may have a different point of view.
 
I get your point but the facts are that although we have an established church, we are an increasingly secular society in this country. In fact it is more likely IMO that the Church is dis-established than Camilla not being Queen (other than by her own request).

Aspects of normal life which may be considered "sinful" by various religions are sex before marriage; divorce, children out of wedlock; adultery; same-sex relationships etc. etc.

The mass of the population of the UK do not think that these acts are sinful or wrong.

I would also add that Charles is still in communion with the Church; that when they married then took the "strongest" (dont know how else to word it) act of contrition.

The religious angle is not a barrier. There are no barriers except the ultimate barrier of death.


EDIT: Just want to add that none of those "sins" listed are illegal either.
 
Last edited:
I'll say it again, Camilla will become a wonderful Queen consort.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cepe, what sins are illegal, perhaps the 10 Commandments and adultery? If not why did they bother with the church stuff?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The ongoing discussion is entertaining as usual. In the end the public opinion about Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, is completely irrelevant. The Windsors care very little about any opinion the UK subjects may have. If need be, spinmeisters will be hired to attune it.
 
Last edited:
Cepe, what sins are illegal, perhaps the 10 Commandments and adultery? If not why did they bother with the church stuff?
Murder is both a sin and illegal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The only one of these previous monarchs who was deemed to be unfit to rule was James II, and only then after ruling for 3 years and doing a less than satisfactory job at it. Seriously, if a man who is of the wrong religion, had no fewer than 7 illegitimate children, and had at least 11 mistresses can be given a shot at being monarch and Supreme Governor of the CoE, I think Charles should be given a pass on his behaviour.

I wonder how many times the James II thread got closed down here back in the 17th Century. :eek:
 
Please note that several posts have been deleted as off topic.
 
Actually the media are not anti-Camilla IMO. I look at the majority of UK papers on line most days and anti-feeling is not raised. The trend is that Camilla is good at her job, they like her causes (including taking on sensitive issues such as rape-victim support and the fight against FGM) and they really like that she is good for Charles.

This is not the same in the US where I understand there is anti-Camilla press. But that does not have an impact here at home.


Please. There is no Camilla press at all here!
 
Please. There is no Camilla press at all here!

Scooter is right. The press could care less about Camilla. It is neither pro nor anti. Kate gets the attention when there is any. Camilla is a non-entity here.
 
Back
Top Bottom