The Monarchy under Charles


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
`
Excuse me, did either of you read the remarks from the public at large attached to the Queen's Facebook recently? There are MANY people who dislike/have no respect for Camilla. This board is NOT an accurate representation of how Camilla is viewed at large. In the real world, there are no moderators.
How very astute of you, Scooter. I must own you are indeed correct. This board is not the real world . . . . . . . . . any more than Facebook is! The "real world" is irrelevant. Much as it must gall you, only Great Britain and the Commonwealth count in this case!

The monarchy under Charles, if his behaviour to date is any indication, will be an absolute panorama of well-rewarded lying and dissembling.

The man would not know what the truth was if it raised up and bit him on the ankles. And for all the hand-wringing about politicians being slimy, they are mere babes when compared to the duplicity of which Charles seems incredibly comfortable in living.

The kindest thing about the monarchy under Charles is that it's probably not going to be a hard-drinking one. And that's about as much as I can muster in the way of compliments.
Hm! Well-rewarded lying and dissembling? This is as fine a piece of vitriol as I have read in a long tIme, I foresee a long career of soap scripts in your future. How positively charming of you to libel and slander my future King and his Consort. Facts please! Evidence would also be a very nice change!

In the real world the people of Great Britain and those of the Commonwealth neither know nor care about the opinions of "Yanks" over there! They will make their own decisions about their new King and Consort in their own b***** time and they do not need "told" how they should feel irrespective of the view of the world at large, and will not allow their opinions to be swayed either way by people who, to be quite frank, are totally unimportant and have neither right nor relevance as to who will Reign (not Rule) over them!
 
Last edited:
Excuse me, did either of you read the remarks from the public at large attached to the Queen's Facebook recently? There are MANY people who dislike/have no respect for Camilla. This board is NOT an accurate representation of how Camilla is viewed at large. In the real world, there are no moderators.

There were also rude and insulting comments written about the Queen and Prince Philip, among them calling them 'inbreds'. If you're going to use the facebook site to show that people were insulting Camilla, then don't be selective to promote your agenda. Other royals were also insulted! It was a group of anti-monarchists who attacked the site.
 
Excuse me, did either of you read the remarks from the public at large attached to the Queen's Facebook recently? There are MANY people who dislike/have no respect for Camilla. This board is NOT an accurate representation of how Camilla is viewed at large. In the real world, there are no moderators.

IMO its very easy to form incorrect views on how the British people feel about Camilla and the BRF if you principally rely on the internet and the tabloids for information. In my experience, most British people are largely happy with the BRF and with Camilla - that is the real world (and the only one that really matters), and not the internet!
 
IMO its very easy to form incorrect views on how the British people feel about Camilla and the BRF if you principally rely on the internet and the tabloids for information. In my experience, most British people are largely happy with the BRF and with Camilla - that is the real world (and the only one that really matters), and not the internet!

If the above statement true, then Prince Charles should ask the Parliament about making the Duchess a Queen Consort. When they announced Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall would marry her Prince; she would only become Princess Consort when Prince Charles becomes King. It only seems right to follow through with the Princess Consort title, unless the Parliment steps in or the British people are asked. If I was a subject I would want my input to the title.
 
If the above statement true, then Prince Charles should ask the Parliament about making the Duchess a Queen Consort. When they announced Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall would marry her Prince; she would only become Princess Consort when Prince Charles becomes King. It only seems right to follow through with the Princess Consort title, unless the Parliment steps in or the British people are asked. If I was a subject I would want my input to the title.

Charles does not need to ask Parliament to make Camilla his Queen. As his wife, she will become Queen the second QE2 passes away. This is just as Camilla is, and remains the Princess of Wales. The only way that Camilla can be stopped from being Queen is through an act of Parliament, and I do not see any of the major political parties supporting this. This is clear from the utterances of the PM on the toopic in the last few days.
 
IMO its very easy to form incorrect views on how the British people feel about Camilla and the BRF if you principally rely on the internet and the tabloids for information. In my experience, most British people are largely happy with the BRF and with Camilla - that is the real world (and the only one that really matters), and not the internet!

Charles does not need to ask Parliament to make Camilla his Queen. As his wife, she will become Queen the second QE2 passes away. This is just as Camilla is, and remains the Princess of Wales. The only way that Camilla can be stopped from being Queen is through an act of Parliament, and I do not see any of the major political parties supporting this. This is clear from the utterances of the PM on the toopic in the last few days.

I agree with Muriel on both her points.
 
Hm! Well-rewarded lying and dissembling? This is as fine a piece of vitriol as I have read in a long time (spelling corrected)

Why thank you. And it was entirely on the fly.
 
Come on ladies and gents, don't allow it to get personal :)

We either share an opinion or we don't. Some have to realise that there will always be people who don't like Camilla and Charles and there will be those who do, and then you have those who couldn't care.

Contrary to what some may think, imo, there is substance to a poll and while they may not always be a clear indication of public sentiment, they are a gage and a gage that cannot necessarily be overlooked, espeically when the mood of the voters seems to remain relatively constant. It's easy to dismiss it if it does not correspond with your way of thinking but that doesn't make the result any less a result, nor does it mean that the result is void of relative accuracy.

Let us discuss it, but not make it personal. I know there are many who disagree with me, but it's my opinion and if someone doesn't like it then it's their tough luck, but in turn I have as much of a right to question or disagree with what they feel and in turn it's my tough luck if I don't agree with them. I should hope I go about it all rather fairly, if not with a touch of light sarcasm at times I shall gladly admit ;) But it's never intended as an insult, more a way of trying to make the topic not so intense which often turns out to be the case. I have a dry sense of humour, what can I say?

'Royal watchers' are the absolute worst kind of people to engage in a discussion because we are all so bloody prejudiced :D And I certainly try not to be, and there are times where it isn't easy to be subjective, but I still make an effort to try and see an issue from both sides.

I like Camilla, I really do, but I think she should be created 'Princess Consort'. And others will state that she should be Queen as the norm so dictates. Sometimes, imo, the 'norm' isn't what's needed and an alternative must be considered and often implemented.

I don't fault anyone for thinking she should be Queen because it's not my place to do so. I respect their right to voice an opinion, just as I should expect the same courtesy shown to me.

But lets face it, it will either happen or it won't. That much is certain.
 
Last edited:
I think PC is well prepared to be King and is a thoughtful intelligent man. I do wish the public would forgive him and move on.

I say this as someone who loved Diana enormously and empathize with her plight.

I don't think Diana would want a constitutional crisis and risk the future of her sons and grandchildren to come. Not what she would have wanted at all. Her statements about the 'top job' were irresponsible but she was really a woman scorned and PC and Camilla had humiliated her publicly and privately for years.

That said, I still think he will make a fine King and perhaps an underapprciated one.
 
I can't be sure, but I think Diana would have enjoyed a Constitutional crisis. This is based on some of her utterances shortly before her death, such as "wait until they see what I'm doing next" and other things that I can't remember.
 
Diana, Princess of Wales was not a saint when it concern Prince Charles and the Duchess. I think if the Princess lived she would have gotten over the marriage, but not the Duchess as Queen Consort. Princess Diana spent too many years as heir to the title. I think it would be hard on her.

If the subjects want the Duchess of Cornwall as their Queen Consort then I will be happy for her. I think Camilla does not want to offend. So we shall just have to wait and see what happens. :flowers:
 
I can see that if Charles had a divorced wife living, it might be a delicate matter. As that's not the case, I don't see that there's any difficulty.
 
Do you mean any difficulty in naming Camilla as Queen?
 
Well there's quite a bit of difficulty, as it seems. There's a lot of difference between being named Queen and Princess Consort.
 
It would have been better if Clarence House had not said anything about Camilla's future title before the marriage. I don't have a problem with Camilla being known as the Queen but for the fact that they stated she would be known as Princess Consort. I know they used the word 'intended' but it still seems a bit deceptive. If they were going to make that announcement, they should follow through with it or not mentioned the title at all.
 
Well there's quite a bit of difficulty, as it seems. There's a lot of difference between being named Queen and Princess Consort.

But as things stand, Camilla will automatically become Queen when Charles accedes to the throne. Since there's no precedent for a "Princess Consort", I would have thought that would pose more of a difficulty!

Anyway, as we are hopefully talking of events a good few years away yet, I expect any controversy to have diminished by then. Not saying it will have disappeared altogether, but there is already a generation who barely remembers Diana and the associated events.
 
Camilla should automatically become Queen, but if the public think she shouldn't be Queen and Prince Charles obviously thought that at one point, then the government and Charles will have to re-consider the decision.

We might be talking about things years in advance, but something like this needs to be sorted before HM passes away.
Just like a change in the succesion needs to be sorted out before William has children.
Which generation, as in age group, would you class as the ones who barely remember Diana?
 
Camilla should automatically become Queen, but if the public think she shouldn't be Queen and Prince Charles obviously thought that at one point, then the government and Charles will have to re-consider the decision.

We might be talking about things years in advance, but something like this needs to be sorted before HM passes away.
Just like a change in the succesion needs to be sorted out before William has children.
Which generation, as in age group, would you class as the ones who barely remember Diana?


Anyone under 18 would have no real memory of Diana as they would have been 5 when she died. Every year more people are born who have no memory of her. In 10 years time over a third of the population will have no memory - about a third of the population are under 30. In 20 years it will be closer to 50%.

Camilla will automatically become Queen. To stop her will require some for of LPs or even legislation and I remember Lord Melbourne's comment to Queen Victoria when she wanted to create Albert 'King Consort' - if parliament can make a king then they can unmake a king. The same argument could be used in reverse - if the parliament has to unmake a Queen Consort they could simply do away with the monarchy altogether.

I think the parliament and the BRF really don't like the idea of debating too much about the royal family as it would simply raise certain issues they don't want raised - like republicanism and the tax-breaks of the royal family.
 
I'm interested to know why you think that.

I direct your question to the thread 'Title for Camilla' and it is there that your curiosity shall be answered :) Or maybe not, I don't know?..haha.

It was some time ago now, so a little searching will be required.
 
Last edited:
Anyone under 18 would have no real memory of Diana as they would have been 5 when she died. Every year more people are born who have no memory of her. In 10 years time over a third of the population will have no memory - about a third of the population are under 30. In 20 years it will be closer to 50%.

Camilla will automatically become Queen. To stop her will require some for of LPs or even legislation and I remember Lord Melbourne's comment to Queen Victoria when she wanted to create Albert 'King Consort' - if parliament can make a king then they can unmake a king. The same argument could be used in reverse - if the parliament has to unmake a Queen Consort they could simply do away with the monarchy altogether.

I think the parliament and the BRF really don't like the idea of debating too much about the royal family as it would simply raise certain issues they don't want raised - like republicanism and the tax-breaks of the royal family.
Parliment isn't about to raise a stink about denying Camilla the throne when they have more pressing issues.
 
That's probably would be the last thing that they would want to get into.
 
The ladies on 'The VIEW' (it's on the television but I'm not watching it as such) are attempting to dissect the topic of Camilla's title, and my god, these women wouldn't know facts if they came up and bit them on the ankles.

* Usually, the wife of the King is the 'Princess Consort'

* Elizabeth II's father was George VII

* Apparently George VII was Queen Victoria's son, according to Joy.

.lol.

Such ignorance. If you're going to talk about something, at least do a little background research before you open your mouth.
 
:previous: Oh dear! :whistling: I thought the women on The View, or some of them anyway, were reasonably well informed, or at least had a bit of common sense. If Elizabeth is Victoria's grand-daughter, she is holding her age very well! :lol:
 
Anyone under 18 would have no real memory of Diana as they would have been 5 when she died. Every year more people are born who have no memory of her. In 10 years time over a third of the population will have no memory - about a third of the population are under 30. In 20 years it will be closer to 50%.

At the risk of dating myself I am absolutely able to remember what actually took place vs. the whitewash that has been copiously applied subsequently, thank you.
 
I was exactly 11 1/2 when Diana died...I would definitely say that I remember Diana. My brother is four years younger and remembers watching the funeral.

But I don't think being an eyewitness to history is the only factor affecting how a person views history. I'm sure that at the age of 11, I knew much more about the royal family than other 11 year-olds, simply because I was interested in royalty. Probably in the year or so before Diana died, I had established some opinions about Diana that I still hold.

On the other hand, some people even today probably don't think much about Camilla or Diana and will believe the "spin" of the moment, because they haven't spent a lot of time forming opinions either way. Others, like many people in this thread, pay attention to royalty and hold opinions about royalty, but change those opinions based on changing circumstances (or changing biases in the media). Others will never change their opinions no matter what.

None of us were eyewitnesses to what happened in the Wales marriage. We read the headlines in the mid-1990s and formed opinions accordingly, and then Diana died and more information came out, and we re-evaluated our opinions of her. Then Charles married Camilla and we got to see Camilla as royal Duchess rather than home-wrecking mistress. Times change, and we learn new pieces of information and discard old ones.

I think that the way Charles and Camilla are received, upon Charles' accession to the throne, will depend a lot on how the media chooses to portray them. Will Charles be portrayed as an old, out-of-touch man and Camilla as his stable but boring (and also elderly) consort? Or will the media celebrate a man who waited years and went through many personal trials, but finally ascended the throne with his "soulmate" at his side? Whichever angle the media takes is the perspective most people will take as well. (IMO.)
 
The ladies on 'The VIEW' (it's on the television but I'm not watching it as such) are attempting to dissect the topic of Camilla's title, and my god, these women wouldn't know facts if they came up and bit them on the ankles.

* Usually, the wife of the King is the 'Princess Consort'

* Elizabeth II's father was George VII

* Apparently George VII was Queen Victoria's son, according to Joy.

.lol.

Such ignorance. If you're going to talk about something, at least do a little background research before you open your mouth.

:ROFLMAO:
George VII!

I am actually confused. Don't most people think that a Queen is the wife of a King? I didn't know the usual opinion was "Princess Consort"!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom