Announcement from Buckingham Palace?

oh dear, going to have to check on that now; DH would know but he is busy elsewhere (not that he was around at the time )

Oh dear, I'm older still!

Camilla will become queen Camilla I hope, as all,previous queen consorts , wife of the King. She is the princess of Wales now

It will make a change!

I hope Charles stands aside for William. He is past retirement age and, at least in my circle of friends, is not well liked. Camilla will always be "the other woman" I think the Royal family need to have a younger image and William and his brother are much more popular than their father.

It matters not a jot whether some people like him or not or who is popular. There are probably more who do.

Queenie should do what's best for the country. I think she's afraid of what will happen if she appoints Charles Regent, nit because he's unpopular so much but because she's worried that younger people, who may not be quite so monarchist, will rally against the concept of monarchy, threatening its future.

Most people in the country are used to the Queen, and will tolerate her; however a change in monarch may be a step too far.

If Camilla shouldn't have her husbands title because she is his second wife and they had an affair then no second wives who had affairs with their husbands should have the right to take his surname on marriage

Women don't have a right to take surnames, surely it's just convention and tradition.

The royal family make things up as they go along and use whatever titles/family names they please, to suit the public mood.

It would seem logical if a man is Prince of Wales then his current wife should be Princess of Wales but they didn't dare announce that as Camilla's public title, instead chose Cornwall.

If a woman doesn't have the right to take her husbands title then wife no 1 could object?

My daughters husband took my daughter's surname, much to the approval of us all.

I find the tradition of women giving up their own name in order to use their husband's name tedious. Some women become the third Mrs Trump for example, with former wives still using that name? I kept the name on my birth certificate, though I did consider taking my mother's family name. I rejected that idea because of course, it came from her father rather than from the good female role models she grew up with.

It messes up family history research, though.
I've been trying to find someone who died in 1860.
She was married to an earl, and took his name. After he died she married someone else, but never took his surname. She was married to him for a lot longer than the first husband.
She has become very elusive, because the first family did not want her known about.
It would be good to have a system.
I do not understand why she did not take her second husband's name, as, in the 1800s you became your husband's property, which is why you took his name.

What really annoys me is reading a man's death certificate and we have name, occupation, cause etc. A woman is wife of,widow of, daughter of

It does make family history searches complicated. Our Greek friends are amazed that women 'disappear' from the family history.
The name of the bride and grooms father appears on their marriage certificate but not the mother.
You're right about death certificates Annie.
I naively thought that the move as a result of the women's liberation movement, for women to keep their own name, or make a new name out of the newly married/civil partnership couple seems to have disappeared again. Almost all my friends kept their own name, or made a new one when legalising a relationship by civil partnership or marriage. Almost all our now adult children have married with the bride taking her husband's family name.
I recognise my views aren't consistent with many on gransnet. I'm a bit of a traditionalist in many ways but not where equality is concerned.
None of my gay or lesbian friends took their partners name on marriage or civil partnership. Equality is the name of the game.

RIverwalk I don't think the royal family makes it up as they go along, They stick to the traditions & rules of the monarchy & country(even when abdicating) And have you seen the age range & turn out for all the royals & they bring in tourists , far better to watch than a pompous President but perhaps less amusing !!

Only less amusing norose4, with the current POTUS where if we suspend terror, its possible to find him amusing. In my youth, I was a Republican of course. My father insisted I tell him who we could have as president to replace the RF. The older I get, the more I understand dad's position on this. The Queen or Mr T... hmm, that's a tough one (not)

Perhaps Queenie with a Trump Comb over ?!

I thought the royal family changed their name to Windsor.
Nothing traditional about that.

Iam64 - a friend used to sadly say to Republicans 'President Thatcher!'. He also pointed out that were Mrs T given a hereditary title (as some wanted) it would be handed down to DS Mark!

What's happened to Mark T anyway? Haven't heard of him for ages. Or Carol, come to that.

They'll have no problem changing it to Middleton then.

Sorry, Elrel, but I've just read that Mark T is a hereditary baronet.

Sunseeker still clinging to the old 'Saint Diana' versus 'The Other Woman' myth. Who says the workshy William is more popular than the POW? The Cambridges are untested, with one-track, populist interests just like Diana... latch onto something that will make headlines.... mental health, children's hospices, in Diana's case it was AIDS and landmines...worthy causes but chosen for maximum press coverage??? Just as Diana could hear the click of a camera shutter at 500 yards, so she and her sons could/can spot a 'good cause' at the same distance and for the same media opportunity... IMHO of course. The Queen may be criticised for being aloof but no-one can accuse her of hitching her wagon to whatever trendy star is in the ascendency.

DJ - I thought it didn't happen, duh!

Perhaps he'll do something stupid enough for them to take it away again.