Camilla to be crowned.

Anniebach and I rarely agree on anything to do with the monarchy.

But I know better than to question her knowledge of the facts surrounding the Royal Family.

Yammy he did not say he wanted to be a tampax

Do you say ‘God forbid I want etc ‘

I don’t suppose this is the first time that a king’s mistress has gained a crown. Dress it up how you like - that’s what she was and he’s now the head of the church. Is nothing sacred?

Anniebach

Charles did not say he wanted to be a tampon Yammy

Oh yes, he did. Try googling the incidence. I am also not the only one saying it on this thread.

…does Queen Consort mean you are crowned ? Or is it a Consort not a Queen as such ?

Our Queen was after all protecting the Monarchy for best ends
she was forced to ‘approve’ when Charles refused to drop her and exspect she saw the strength was needed next to her son
She would put this first before her personal feelings is my thought

The Queen said it was her wish for Camilla to be Queen Consort.

So in recognition of her 70 years of service to this country, perhaps the naysayers could respect that.

I don’t care either way, but so called royalists saying they’ll boo. Ffs- get over yourselves!

Re ‘they were both u nhappy & was good to get divorced’
Not so! Di was innocent party and her happiness denied by him from the first moment. She was fooled then trapped in a stuffy unyielding environment. Her life was public all the time she was truly out on a limb with no part of it just a victim. A pawn

Thinking the point of our upsetting feelings are getting missed ……

In that Perhaps those who have known betrayed by a husband/wife who understand at a different level the emotions it brings to you - affecting confidence esteem embarrassment happiness contentment to name a few how was she able to bounce back in that set up

She deserved better and it’s not been forgotten by the caring & the understanding. it was too bad to be brushed aside which is obvious it seems by this outpouring. It’s forgotten until something like this brings it back up
I believe now there are consequences for behaviours and Harry & Williams feelings truly to be considered on this subject - why not?
What they have had to deal with is huge. If their mum had lived it would probably be fine if she too had found happiness which may have been in the offing, but their memory isn’t of a happy mum is it? Id like to hear Chris Ships thoughts maybe too

I know there are huge issues going on in the world but this has evoked a lot of feeling, all about unfairness at end of day ?.

When the scandal broke about Edward V111, the big problem - or at least the biggest part of it - was that tradition and the constitution dictate that the wife of the King is the Queen. Why not? Whatever title Camilla has affects nobody.

Humbertbear

It isn’t down to Charles. The late Queen said Camilla should be known as The Queen Consort which is the title given to The Queen Mother and she was crowned. Let’s forget all the Diana malarkey and honour a woman who works hard and has supported the Royal Family. Like any other children whose parent was divorced and widowed , I am sure that William and Harry are simply pleased that their father has found some happiness.

Why should she not be crowned? As others have said, other Consorts have been crowned and there is nothing wrong with Camilla being crowned to.
It isn't down to either of them that Charles was not able to marry her when they were both young, though it is a shame for everyone concerned.
I wait to be smashed into the ground, but I think that she will make a much better queen than Diana, the teenager who always wanted to be the centre of attention and (sadly) never grew up.

I was vilified yesterday for posting that some monarchists don't seem to understand the rules of having a monarchy.

When you understand the rules, you often realise what a ridiculous set up it is. So I think it's very likely that Republicans understand Constitutional Monarchies a lot more than many full paid up, flag waving, "patriotic" monarchists.

volver

^Phillip wasn't crowned. Why on earth should Camilla be crowned?^

How many times? How many times does this have to be explained? It really is no argument at all. It just shows how ignorant the poster is about our RF and everything that goes with it.

Goes to show you don’t even have to be a Royalist to understand procedure and historical protocol.

Phillip wasn't crowned. Why on earth should Camilla be crowned?

How many times? How many times does this have to be explained? It really is no argument at all. It just shows how ignorant the poster is about our RF and everything that goes with it.

Janeea

There were no boos when they greeted the crowd after the Queen died

People do show respect when someone dies.

That doesn't mean that they accept Charles's previous mistress and the adulterous relationship that broke up the marriage of Charles and Diana, eventually leading to the death of William and Harry's mother as being morally acceptable.
Phillip wasn't crowned. Why on earth should Camilla be crowned?

Yes - God forbid , a Tampax

Do people say ‘God forbid’ about something they want ?

RichmondPark1

25 years is a helluva long time to bear a grudge about a person you don't know from Adam, based on information provided third hand by the notoriously untrustworthy tabloid press.

Camilla must REALLY love Charles to have put up with everything she's tolerated over the years. Now she has to take this job on at a time in her life when most of us can relax. If I were her I'd wish I'd stayed happily single in my country house in Wiltshire and could spend my days wafting about with a terrier and a trug full of bulbs.

Well said that woman!

She should NOT be crowned- period.

There were no boos when they greeted the crowd after the Queen died

Good grief, I can’t believe anyone thinks it’s right to publish and republish a private conversation, just for salacious gratification of the readers, no matter who the speakers are.
Sick!

Anniebach

Charles did not say he wanted to be a tampon Yammy

Early on in the call, the couple - both married to other people at the time - dabbled in double entendres, before going full-on raunch:

CHARLES: Oh stop! I want to feel my way along you, all over you and up and down you and in and out . . .

CAMILLA: Oh!

CHARLES: Particularly in and out.

CAMILLA: Oh, that's just what I need at the moment.

CHARLES: Is it?

Then - in an idea that they probably both still wake up in a cold sweat about even now - they went...even deeper:

CHARLES: Oh, God. I’ll just live inside your trousers or something. It would be much easier!

CAMILLA: (laughing) What are you going to turn into, a pair of knickers? (Both laugh). Oh, you’re going to come back as a pair of knickers.

CHARLES: Or, God forbid, a Tampax. Just my luck! (Laughs)

Well said Humbertbear!

Camilla is Charles’ wife, his consort, and as such should be crowned, just like the Queen Mother and Queen Mary for instance. Camilla works extremely hard to support her husband, and does so much to promote literacy, and in support of those experiencing domestic abuse, to name just a couple of examples of her work.

Here !here !

I am happy for Camilla to be crowned as I think she has tried hard and earned her place as Queen Consort. She has just quietly carried on. Like many of you I resented her at first because of the way Diana was treated but I think it’s possible to admire both women. People forget that Diana worked hard for the RF for well over a decade despite her personal unhappiness. Camilla has soldiered on in the face of great hostility although well past normal retirement age. Although it’s not that relevant to Camilla’s situation, I am surprised so many people insist Harry and Meghan are happy. Almost all the evidence suggests not - yes, it’s possible to find smiling photos of Harry but in the majority, especially off guard, he looks sad. I don’t wish him or Meghan ill, but I can’t see their future looking good with so much acrimony with both families. Such a waste of opportunities all round.

Surely most people have affairs before settling down? There's nothing wrong in that!

The term "affair" is generally a reference to married persons, or people having a sexual relationship outside of that marriage. Camilla's first husband, in a book by Penny Junor, said the affair between Camilla and Charles started sometime after the birth of their daughter in 1978, certainly before 1980. Charles & Diana married in 1981. Camilla was having an affair, while married, when her children were 6 and 2. I personally see a lot wrong with that. ^ Charles says in his autobiography he and Camilla started their affair in 1986. Camilla divorced in 1995, Charles divorced in 1996. ^

had he been allowed to marry Camilla in the first place (and as likely no children from that marriage)

Camilla was 34 when Charles married Diana. If Charles had decided to marry Camilla at that time they could certainly have had children together - however, at that time it's pretty certain he would never be King. So the obvious choice would be marry the Virgin, affair with the married woman, be a King in the future. His choice.

Camilla is not an 'adulterous' woman, what a weird old fashioned expression. If that is the case, the Diana too was an adulterous woman several times over!

I don't think this can be excused as a "well she (Diana) did it too* because Diana isn't a reference to the thread of Camilla to be Crowned

I do believe Charles when he says he returned to Camilla when things went badly wrong with Diana and not before. She was unfaithful before him.

Not true.

A lot of lofty talk of Christian principles. I don't see much of that in the continued spite against Camilla. What happened to Christian charity and forbearance?
I wonder if the many people who criticise them have never gone off the rails and regretted it later?
When my brother remarried, no one came up with the idea that his new wife should not be known as Mrs . . .
The Church of England doesn't condemn divorce and remarriage any more thank goodness, one of our dearest friends was a Bishop, and yes he was divorced and had remarried while remaining active Pastor.

There is a remarkable difference between Joe/Jo Public (including any Bishops wandering by) and - Charles III, King of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms.

To stand (or sit) in Westminster Abbey, as King and Queen, to proclaim themselves as Head(s) of the Church of England and all that entails -

It's a lovely thing that these two people have each other, but, with their grubby past, it does not sit well with me that Camilla be crowned. I truly can't think of any argument that could possibly sway me.

I don't think you can say in one breath "but it (Coronation) is what has happened historically" and then in the next "what happened between C&C and C&D is in the past and should be forgotten". I do think the public are being manipulated by the Press in their general reporting of C&C as the golden couple, madly in love, should have been together from the start stories.

Gosh, long post, but catching up on the other posts on this thread there's so much stuff that's been bothering me ....

I quite like Camilla. She hasn’t put a foot wrong since joining the RF and just got her head down and got on with it, despite the vitriol that was coming from the papers and social media.
I’m not a huge fan of the RF but would rather have them than not.
The Queens funeral was a sight to behold and felt a little bit proud that people from all over the world would be watching and hopefully, thinking the same.
The coronation will have all the pomp and splendour and will be a great watch and I hope that will be seen worldwide and enjoyed.
I think that the RF is a huge asset to the UK.