Charles & Camilla: How has your opinion changed since the wedding?

[CrownPrincess5]

Is it not the case that Camilla will have some say in the matter of her title when Charles becomes king? It's possible that she wholeheartedly agreed and prefered the Cornwall title when they married and when the time comes I imagine the "Princess Consort" title is one she would prefer too. She's never struck me as being the type to revel in her status and it's just a thought that whatever her legal or customary rights are, surely she will have a say in what people call her?!

Exactly. Charles is "king". So I really don't see how she should even have an opinion on the matter. You never know how Camilla feels privately and what she and Charles has discussed. I'm pretty sure when the time comes she will want to be queen. Regardless of the earlier mention of princess consort. Although I think this is wrong. If they tell us she will be princess consort then she should be princess consort. They shouldn't give us this information and then later on decide that she'll be queen.

 

[Iluvbertie]

They made it clear that there was an intention in 2005. We are now in 2010 and intentions change.

I always am amazed at these people who have never changed their intention due to circumstances that have changed (personally my intentions from 2005 have changed in the last 5 years such as I had intended to retire in 2012 but due to the GFC will have to delay retirement about 10 years or so to make up my losses in superannuation - which is still going down due to local circumstance so my intention about retirement has changed again).

We don't know what the public will want when, and if, Charles becomes King (the if is because he mightn't outlive his mother of course). The government and the people might insist on the Princess Consort and that is what she will be or they might insist that she is Queen Camilla and that is what she will be.

Charles wants his wife recognised as his wife and that means being Queen when he is King. To do otherwise is to say that the marriage is a morganatic marriage, which in 1936 the legal advice to the government and the then King was, doesn't exist in Britain.

 

[scooter]

You evidence for this assertion is....?

As usual you assume the worst of Charles because that suits your beliefs.
I don't think the Queen and the PM would have allowed this comment to go out if it was never the intention for her to be known as Princess Consort. They would have simply kept quiet about it and let people assume that she would be Queen Consort.

My opinion of Charles and Camilla is based upon their actions, nothing else. Charles has been less than truthful on any number of occasions, over many decades. For example, when the divorce with the first wife was being hammered out, on many occasions he stated that he would never marry again. There is no way that the marriage to Camilla would not have produced an even larger constitutional crisis had Charles had come right out and said 'Yes it's Camilla Princess of Wales and one day Queen Camilla'. That's just on the divorcee level, let alone the mistress issue.

 

[scooter]

What "huge upswell" are you referring to?

I assume that you are joking....

 

[Zonk]

Yes, we all have intentions that sometimes change and evolve over time.

My issue with Charles' intention that Camilla should be Princess Consort is my opinion that he said whatever was necessary at the time (I am speaking of the engagement period) to allay any fears about Camilla being Queen. I am speaking of those who at the time expressed their opinion that they didn't mind that Charles and Camilla marry but they didn't want her to be Queen. Personally, I don't think he had ever had any intention of her not being crowned Queen. And he has a right to feel that way, but say it. And I am basing my opinion on assumptions of things that Charles has supposedly (cause we dont' really know) said in the past. The I won't remarry thing being a prime example. I could be wrong but hey, its my opinion.

I also acknolwedge that polls are apt to be wrong as they don't poll everyone.

 

[rmay286]

How is it hypocritical if the intention at the time was x but circumstances change and now it is y?

If Charles changes his stance on Camilla becoming Queen Consort, I think he will look hypocritical, even if he really did change his mind. It's like politicians who promise one thing before an election, then change their minds when they "discover new information" after an election. Maybe sometimes politicians really do change their minds, but how is the public to know when they're being honest and when they're just saying whatever it takes to get elected? I think Charles would be a nice person to spend time with on a personal basis. But as a future leader, I think he has a rather bad track record of carrying through on his stated intentions.

 

[Mermaid1962]

I wonder if it's possible that Camilla doesn't want to be Queen. Being Queen Consort would entail more responsibility and visibility than being Princess Consort, I should think. We know already that Camilla has been a long-term smoker, which surely has affected her health and stamina in some way. She's later in life coming into her high-profile marriage and so hasn't had decades to get ready for the kind of work and publicity that being Queen Consort would mean.

My personal opinion is that having Camilla known as Duchess of Cornwall and then Princess Consort is that it was a compromise between Camilla being Charles' live-in partner and her being known as the Princess of Wales and then Queen. In other words, I think that Charles and Camilla have a morganatic marriage in all but name. The status of children is not an issue, because Camilla isn't of child-bearing age.

 

[Russophile]

If Charles changes his stance on Camilla becoming Queen Consort, I think he will look hypocritical, even if he really did change his mind.

Sometimes they DO change their minds.
Though in this case, I see what you mean, it would be nice to have ONE title and stick with that intended ONE title.

 

[rmay286]

I think Camilla would be happy just being Princess Consort. She seems like a down-to-earth kind of person who likes to stay in the background as much as possible. I wonder if Charles would push for her to be Queen Consort, though.

 

[Iluvbertie]

...on many occasions he stated that he would never marry again...

It must be wonderful to have never have circumstances change so that something you intended to do never changed.

Charles said that he intended not to remarry and I believe that was his intention at the time. Just as I have made a comment like 'I will never do that' only to find myself in a situation some time later doing exactly that e.g. I currently hold a position in an organisation that I said I would never hold and meant at the time, in 1975 when I applied to uni I said that I would never teach kids older than 8 and now I teach High School kids. I didn't lie when I said that I wouldn't do those things. I strongly believed that that was what I would do at the time I made those comments.

You are so lucky to have never said anything like that and then had circumstances change. You are the only person I know, even if only in cyber space, who is in that situation.

A lie is something you say that you know is untrue not stating an intention and then finding the situation changes so your intention has to change to accomodate that circumstance e.g. Charles couldn't sit with his partner at a wedding of mutual friends. Yes he knew that in advance but when it actually happened and his family, friends and advisors really saw how that impacted on him they advised him and he discussed it with them and changed his intention.

Charles, like many people, changes his mind. That isn't lying - it is normal.

 

[muriel]

I assume that you are joking....

Not at all. Apart from a few tabloids, most people did not seem to be upset, let alone their being a "huge upswell".

 

[Lumutqueen]

When it was announced they would marry, it wasn't that big of a deal, only for hardcore Diana fans or people who didn't like the fact Camilla was a divorcee.
No huge upswell in my mind.

 

[MARG]

I'm with the realists here. Many a time I have sworn I would do or not do something only to find years later that surprise, surprise everything has changed. I have changed. Time has passed and my life is different than it was 5, 10 or 15 years ago. More importantly, I have changed.

I am not hypocrite enough to expect others to live in vaccuum packed bubbles when I get to live life to it's fullest.

Nevertheless, all this hopeless blather is irrelevant. For Camilla not to be Queen would necessitate one of two things;

a. Charles pre-deceases his mother, or

b. Since morganatic marriages are not recognised in law in Britian, a new law would have to be drawn up, passed in both houses and signed into law by the HM the Queen.

 

[georgiea]

First of all I think Prince Charles would have stayed unmarried. The public version that made Prince Charles change his view was the seating arrangement at mutual friends of both the Prince and the Duchess. I think the real factor was that Prince Charles was supporting the Duchess for the last three to four years on Duchy money. I read that Camilla divorce lawyer told her to put all her money in the home she bought after her divorce forcing Prince Charles to support her. The duchess also lost a lot of her money from a recession. The time the wedding seating arrangement broke, so did the story of Duchy money support the then Ms Camilla Parker-Bowles. Right after that the engagement was announced and no more talk about the Duchy money and support. The Duchy money support was more of a scandal to the BRF than a marriage to a divorcee. That is what I think changed the Queen's mind and she let Prince Charles finally marry his true love.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Thank you for proving my point that circumstances change and so comment made in 1996 were no longer relevant in 2005.

 

[CrownPrincess5]

I'm actually surprised to hear that nobody really cared one way or the other. I thought it may have been a huge deal when he married Camilla. Whether I dislike her or not, she is doing well as Duchess of Cornwall. I gained a lot of respect for her when she broke her leg and continued to support her country. She didn't have to do that. So slowly, but surely, my opinion is changing. Like MARG said on the post above, as the years go by, we change. Including our opinions.

 

[Russophile]

I've always been pro-Camilla as Russo loves a good love story and PC needed someone he could rely on/trust/lean on/support so very much-- she's been a rock to him.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I've always been pro-Camilla as Russo loves a good love story and PC needed someone he could rely on/trust/lean on/support so very much-- she's been a rock to him.

Exactly - she has always been discreet and supportive of him - a true helpmate and love. Someone he could always trust and who understood him and someone he loves and supports.

 

[Roslyn]

I feel the same as Russo and Iluvbertie. Charles & Camilla's compatibility and affection for each other is obvious in their photos.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

First of all I think Prince Charles would have stayed unmarried. The public version that made Prince Charles change his view was the seating arrangement at mutual friends of both the Prince and the Duchess. I think the real factor was that Prince Charles was supporting the Duchess for the last three to four years on Duchy money. I read that Camilla divorce lawyer told her to put all her money in the home she bought after her divorce forcing Prince Charles to support her. The duchess also lost a lot of her money from a recession. The time the wedding seating arrangement broke, so did the story of Duchy money support the then Ms Camilla Parker-Bowles. Right after that the engagement was announced and no more talk about the Duchy money and support. The Duchy money support was more of a scandal to the BRF than a marriage to a divorcee. That is what I think changed the Queen's mind and she let Prince Charles finally marry his true love.

That is a good post. I never viewed it like that. It is very interesting.

Camilla has a warm heart and bloody brilliant sense of humor. She is a nurturer and comedianne in one package. Perfect for the lifelong fan of the Goons, and Mabel's boy.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Time changes. If Charles said once that he wouldn't get married, he has the right to change his mind.
William said he would likely to marry at 28. I don't see that happening.
I have always liked Camilla, more than I liked Diana. She has always been the one for him.

 

[Dierna23]

Nothing changed for me. Since I was a kid (and Diana was still alive then) I preferred Camilla. No proper explanation for that. So, the only thing I can say is that I'm most pleasantly surprised about how marvelous Camilla has developed - I think she's an asset for the BRF.

 

[love_cc]

First of all I think Prince Charles would have stayed unmarried. The public version that made Prince Charles change his view was the seating arrangement at mutual friends of both the Prince and the Duchess. I think the real factor was that Prince Charles was supporting the Duchess for the last three to four years on Duchy money. I read that Camilla divorce lawyer told her to put all her money in the home she bought after her divorce forcing Prince Charles to support her. The duchess also lost a lot of her money from a recession. The time the wedding seating arrangement broke, so did the story of Duchy money support the then Ms Camilla Parker-Bowles. Right after that the engagement was announced and no more talk about the Duchy money and support. The Duchy money support was more of a scandal to the BRF than a marriage to a divorcee. That is what I think changed the Queen's mind and she let Prince Charles finally marry his true love.

A very good post. But I does have different views. IMO the duchy's money on Camilla is one of the reasons, but not the trigger one. Duchy's money is Prince Charles's private money, Camilla's his private spending, he would never publish his private spendings. But there are questions to be asked in other areas, such as Camilla's living arrangement in Clarence House which is a public property.

There are other triggers such as public recognition of Camilla as his life partner. Charles pulled out of attending his godson' Eward Van Cusem s wedding because Camilla cannot sit with him in the church as a couple. Thus this is another question, where can Camilla sit in Charles' cornation. In addition, I think Camila's father is ill and the future of his daughter may push him to talk to Charles. Anyway, Charles proposed and they married in the end.

Thank you again the thought.

 

[Warren]

I read that Camilla divorce lawyer told her to put all her money in the home she bought after her divorce forcing Prince Charles to support her.

Would you be able to provide a source for this claim?

The Duchy money support was more of a scandal to the BRF than a marriage to a divorcee.

"A scandal to the BRF"? The income the POW receives from the Duchy of Cornwall is his to spend as he pleases. Where is (or was) the "scandal"?

 

[georgiea]

Would you be able to provide a source for this claim?

"A scandal to the BRF"? The income the POW receives from the Duchy of Cornwall is his to spend as he pleases. Where is (or was) the "scandal"?

Source of both claims came in article from British newspaper a week before the engagement announcement. The article made it into a scandal that Prince Charles used money from the Duchy to keep Camilla. I read the article at the time and thought this would decide the issue of the Duchess. Sorry, I wish I could remember name of the newspaper.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Source of both claims came in article from British newspaper a week before the engagement announcement. The article made it into a scandal that Prince Charles used money from the Duchy to keep Camilla. I read the article at the time and thought this would decide the issue of the Duchess. Sorry, I wish I could remember name of the newspaper.

I don't remember hearing that Camilla was advised to use ALL her divorce settlement to buy Raymill House but I do remember hearing that she was advised to use some of it to give herself her own home.

Some of the press wanted to make an issue out of Charles supporting Camilla out of his private income. This is because the press, Daily Mail etc, are out to destroy Charles and have been for many years and so any criticism they can launch at Charles they will. They were wrong in suggesting that Charles was doing anything wrong. His private income is his to use for whatever purpose he sees fit and if that means supporting a string of mistresses so be it. If he was on the Civil List and that Civil List was his only means of support I still wouldn't have a problem as that would be his income for the work he does and how he spends that is his business.

I didn't see any scandal at the time nor now about a wealthy men with a private income using it to support a friend, lover or whomever.

 

[LadyHylton]

Agreed, it was the Daily Mail that had that article.

Agree too, that it is his money, & he is certainly entitled to spend however he so desires!

 

[Lumutqueen]

I've looked at all the articles about Camilla before engagement, and cannot find one about the Duchy on the Daily Mail website.

 

[LadyHylton]

I've looked at all the articles about Camilla before engagement, and cannot find one about the Duchy on the Daily Mail website.

It came out the very day before the wedding announcement, February 9th. It may never have been online, just on the newspaper stands. If I am not mistaken it was written by Richard Kay & another journo. I still have it somewhere, along with all the newspapers celebrating the engagement. Where it may be is another story. lol

 

[Iluvbertie]

It came out the very day before the wedding announcement, February 9th. It may never have been online, just on the newspaper stands. If I am not mistaken it was written by Richard Kay & another journo. I still have it somewhere, along with all the newspapers celebrating the engagement. Where it may be is another story. lol

It was in a number of online papers (otherwise I would never have read it). I read the Daily Mail, the Telegraph and the Express every day and I am fairly sure it was in more than one of those. I don't remember it being the day before but remember it going on for a couple of days not one.

There was an investigation into Charles' expenditure at the time and it came out in that investigation.