'Queen Camilla'?

He wasn't banned from marrying her. He went off to sea on a long voyage and while he was away she married Parker Bowles who was quite a catch in those days.

henetha

I don't think anyone is glad that Diana is dead. She was wonderful in some ways, but Camilla will make a much better Queen. Her title is irrelevant. She loves and supports Charles and has proved herself fit for the job.
Long live Charles and Camilla.

Well said. I totally agree....and if Charles had been allowed to marry the woman he loved in his youth then Camilla would have been his queen anyway.

Don't like it one little bit - and I've always been a Royalist!

What a wonderful story for a historical novel

Where’s Barbara Cartland when you need her?

And just think of all the insider knowledge she would have had!

Just as well WWM2.
What would we talk about otherwise?

Nice to see ‘family members’ getting on.

Talking about mistresses - I see it is being suggested that Rose Hanbury’s son is a page boy at the coronation.

The royals certainly do things differently 😄😄

lemsip

Dickens
did Charles actually say that he resented Diana's popularity with the public? Or was it assumed?
.............................................

he said in a speech that he needed two wives as the public only wanted 'his wife' and not him when on walk about.
each side calling for Diana and not wanting him.

That was a comment misconstrued by the media. If you keep an open mind it could well be a compliment to Diana.

I still feel sad about the Queen but I wish Charles and Camilla a long life and happiness. Life’s too short to bear grudges and pass judgement against others.

My parents eventually divorced after a similar set up but after a few years of being angry and hurt I suddenly decided to let it all go. It was like having a huge weight off my shoulders.

I was very much against Camilla when Diana died. Then I learned more about Charles and his relationship with Camilla.

I believe he wanted to marry her when they first met. But she was in an off/on relationship with Parker Bowles. Also she had a past and was not considered grand enough by the royals who conspired to separate them. Charles was sent off on a long naval posting. He was heartbroken when she married Parker Bowles.

If they had been allowed to marry then the Charles/Diana debacle would never have taken place and things would have gone very differently.

Diana was very much sold into the marriage like a sacrificial virgin. She was a very immature 19 year old.

What a wonderful story for a historical novel. You couldn't make it up.

volver3

I think the slave trade furore is a red herring.

Everybody - everybody - profited from the slave trade. A register was released a few years ago that showed that anybody with the slightest bit of spare money had shares in slavery.

I agree. (Don't faint.)

Schools, community halls, theatres, houses, even churches were built by benefactors using money from the slave trade.

We can't change history and we need to do our best now to abolish modern slavery.

She always looks so smug.

She's a 'usurper'

Nicegranny i fully agree with you.

I find it extraordinary that so many of you comment how 'nice' Camilla seems, how 'happy' she makes Charles. How on earth do you know? All they do is perform an act. To me it's an undignified soap opera

Using the same barometer as you Greta, how do you know that Camilla isn't "nice" and that she doesn't make him happy? How do you know it's "just an act"? Do you know them personally to make such an observation? Or are you just like the rest of us and formed an opinion on what you read and see?

Greta

I find it extraordinary that so many of you comment how 'nice' Camilla seems, how 'happy' she makes Charles. How on earth do you know? All they do is perform an act. To me it's an undignified soap opera.

Greta

We know in the same way as We know anything else about the RF. Some of it by prurient interest in others’ private lives, which people delight in spreading; some of it via the newspapers. Believing what you read in the newspapers, at least one poster is at great pains to inform us is so funny. Some of our knowledge comes via the media and some via books, which contain varying recollections of the truth
All of those contain embellishments added to suit the teller’s POV.
In fact, as IrishDancer posted above
^ We none of us know them.^

The king clearly doesn’t have to do what his mother wished, he is the monarch now. I think queen Camilla sounds better. I like her, she’s doing her best.
Wish we didn’t have The royal family really. It gives some people the idea that others are better than them, and then we put up with oligarchs rich people who don’t pay tax and such.

It's a bit of a joke really/

Thank you Saetana - how often does it need to be repeated I wonder.

The wife of a king regnant is always called just queen, following their coronation - just like Queen Elizabeth's mother was. There is no such title as queen consort, it is what she is but it is not her title - all queens married to king regnants have been titled Queen XXX. Its different for the husband of a queen regnant such as Elizabeth and Victoria - as the title of queen is subordinate to that of king, their husbands are prince consorts and titled Prince rather than King. Queen Elizabeth would have been well aware of this, and also aware that the consort bit would be dropped following the coronation.

Don’t hold back * KevinCharley*. - tell it like it is

What a bunch of miserable, opinionated people you lot are.

I don’t think she should be Queen .Queen Consort is bad enough . Still think Charles should of stepped and let William and Katherine do the job

Bridgeit

Why does it matter? The whole world knows how it all panned out.
What difference does a title or not make ? At its core It is just a descriptive word conveying an assumed, or bestowed ‘position’
It isn’t harmful, it’s a little bit silly , but possibly helpful to the postman , the baker & the candlestick maker🤭

I agree.

As I said earlier that it makes not a jot of difference to me.

volver3

I know, it my own fault.

I always give people the benefit of the doubt and assume that they have the sense they are born with. I tend to assume that people can assimilate humour and understand references back to earlier posts.

I'm so often disappointed. 😞

But you are such a good example of non-assimilation, and humour is only funny if the other person finds it funny V3. That’s why some comedians are popular with a group of people and some are not. Just thinking you are funny doesn’t mean you are. Evidently you haven’t assimilated that knowledge.
You never disappoint. I picture your responses and your responses match what I expect. ✂️✂️✂️✂️✂️😡😡

FannyCornforth

Why CG? Why not ‘Queen Kate’?

(I agree about the vitriol. It seems to get worse )

Because her name is ‘Catherine’, not ‘Kate’.

You never hear William refer to his wife as ‘Kate’, it’s always ‘Catherine’.

Aveline

Hmmmm. I gather she's to be called Queen Camilla despite the late Queen stating that she should be Queen Consort. Albert was only the Prince Consort. Poor old Prince Philip wasnt even that. What's so special about Camilla? I was warming to her but I'm not so sure now. They're taking a risk with the public support.

I agree with you volva3. If we are honest, everyone was involved in the slave trade in one way or another, and nobody, but nobody particularly in the early days saw anything wrong with it. So why would the RF of these times be any different? None of us, and it is quite a lot of us can be held responsible for something that happened long before we were born,anymore than modern day Germans, Japanese, Italians and many more can be blamed for two dreadful wars or indeed Julius Ceasar!