Camilla to be crowned.

The coronation will be more appealing to watch with Camilla in her fancy gown and diamonds ??

None - or at least very few - of us know Charles, Camilla or Diana when she was alive. Nor were we in the room at the time.

So what we know is gleaned from partial or biased sources, loads of PR, endless news items & eventually our own experiences.

Diana sadly died young, & she was not allowed the everyday expectation that we may mature at our own pace, come to terms with hurts that are done to us & the consequences of the mistakes we made. Diana will always be youthful & attractive in our memories, she’ll never grow older, tired, wrinklier or menopausal.

When Diana died, her reputation was in the balance, no longer the fresh beautiful innocent well-meaning girl, she was making her own way after the divorce. She had not always behaved wisely & it was becoming known that she liked to borrow husbands. She was not always emotionally well, certainly vulnerable as the Bashir revelations show. Diana & Charles were moving towards a balanced mature shared parenthood, & that was their private business, but it didn’t sell papers so wasn’t the settled version of their marriage.

Had Diana survived, she would have built her new life, hopefully found lasting love & maybe have another child or two.

Eventually, we’d have seen Diana & Camilla present a united front to support the Queen, Charles & William because that is what the royals & aristocracy do.

Agree. She was a normal woman living her life and making her own mistakes.
She wasn't a Saint

Disgust doesn't cover my feelings, she was instrumental in the breakup and heartbreak leading to Diana's death. He once said he wanted to be her tampon! Well that sums that up beautifully now we know who runs that marriage. It's a parody! He should abdicate, go enjoy his tamponage and leave William and Catherine to soldier on.

I`ll be going into hiding after this post.
I like Camilla. I didn`t like Diana, she was a walking clothes horse, and she always made sure the press knew exactly where she was going to be. I wouldn`t have wished on her the end that she had, but I really didn`t like her.

It's interesting isn't it how kings have queen consorts but queens don't have king consorts.
Neither Albert nor Philip were crowned nor took a king consort title. It reveals the sexual politics at the heart of patriarchy. \women are naturally number two...to have a king as number two not acceptable...or wasn't we don't know in the future though it looks like its kings for many generations to come. If only Diana had had two daughters...that would have been interesting.
You'd have thought that Charles would have been sensitive to Diana's memory and her personal suffering and how much she was loved by the populus not to push for crowning Camilla. the title should be enough.

Let her be crowned!! Ok, bucket of tar and mountains of feathers. That'll sort it

I believe that the reason neither Albert, nor Philip, were crowned is something to do with a king having precedence over a queen. The hereditary sovereign would not give up her position to another. The exception was Queen Mary whose husband, William, was crowned to give the rather shaky royal family's stature extra strength. They ruled as co-sovereigns.

I know of a couple of kings' wives not crowned. One was George I's wife, Sophia, who was left behind in Germany. The other was Caroline, wife of George IV. She was not even allowed into the coronation ceremony. There may well be others before then.

I have no problem with Camilla being crowned. She is obviously a great support and, maybe, moderating influence on Charles. Yes, they behaved badly but the Diana and Charles marriage should never have happened. I wonder if the many people who criticise them have never gone off the rails and regretted it later?

I don't see as it matters either way. She is his wife and protocol would suggest that therefore she becomes a Queen when he is crowned King. She has been a huge support for Charles who whilst living a privileged life it has had some difficulties for him. I think we should all now give them both some time to settle into their new positions and not judge them until they have had a fair crack of the whip. I wish them both a long and fruitful life. God save the King.

So much dislike of a woman for events 25 years ago. How many of us are the same person we were 25 years ago.
Living in the now is what matters. Its mind boggling how
so many seek revenge for something the truth of which is irrelevant today.
The Queen Consort seems a very nice lady who loves her
husband and she carries out her engagements with a refreshing
charm;

I don't blame Camilla for the way Charles treated Diana. She didn't go to St Pauls and promise to love and keep Diana or forsake all others and keep only unto her. Charles made those promises in front of his God even though he knew he was already betraying her. He broke his promises to Diana and treated her appallingly. He is to blame for the anguish she suffered as her marriage collapsed around her. He cynically and callously married a young girl who he thought he could control. He forgot that young girls grow up and some become strong women who finally fight back. He thought he could have his cake and eat it. He was wrong

The Queen Mother was Queen Consort and was crowned, Queen Mary was Queen Consort and was crowned...They are following historical precedence and also, the late Queen wanted this to happen

so, ' the late Queen wanted this to happen',

the queen had to say/do what she had to. she couldn't rock the monarchy once she had gone could she!

I’m more Of Diana’s generation but feel for Charles and Camilla. I think she should be crowned as has provided Charles with stability for many years.

Exactly, Jaberwok! I despair of the ignorance around our history and traditions. People don't have to agree with them, but at least know what you're arguing against!
George VI's wife was Queen Consort, she wasn't called that because it was blindingly obvious - she was the King's wife, not the Queen Regnant. I assumed Camilla was referred to as Queen Consort following the death of Elizabeth II to avoid confusion.

Oh, and I've been waiting for the howls of protest about Queen Camilla being crowned! ? She's good for King Charles, she's stuck it out, never complained, just soldiered on. Plenty of marriages fail, and no one really cares except those involved.

I like Charles, he's refreshing, and I think he behaved magnificently after the death of his mother. I believe he will be a good King , and Camilla, as Queen, will support him as she has for so long.

Good luck to both of them! ?

infidelity/betrayal can be heartbreaking in any realm, but each circumstance vary but this isn’t the norm being discussed here
It’s basically a Royal Prince cheating on his new Princess from engagement
- It takes two! His vows to Di were empty and if he isn’t to be an example who ?
Vows seem old fashioned these days and flippant to some people
It’s reported the Queen told him to divorce and to get rid of his mistress too

Grantanow

Waste of time this discussion when the UK is in such a mess caused by Truss and Kwarteng.

I agree and it is about to be confirmed that Kwarteng has been sacked by Truss.

I do think all the Diana hype that still goes on after 25 years is just weird but, of course, it sells papers and fills the TV news slots. Charles and Diana both had affairs and they divorced so he was not widowed, as a post up-thread suggested. Diana died before William and Kate married so she was never Kate's mother-in-law. They never had a relationship but some people refer to her as Kate's 'late mother-in-law'. Charles didn't set the paparazzi on Diana. As they would see it, she was fair game because of her lifestyle and the frenzy of Diana worship, which is still being milked today. Let the woman rest in peace.

This is my opinion. I'm sure GN moderators will remove any death threats! ?

Polly7, yes I read that QE2 told Charles to ditch Camilla after his divorce so that he could make a fresh start. She was afraid people would not accept him as King with Camilla as his partner. And it's still true of some of us as I can see! Though they seem to be against Camilla and don't mind Charles being King even though he was just as responsible for Diana's unhappiness if not more so! I've never understood why it's always the woman that gets more of the blame.

Fortunately Buckingham Palace is unlikely to consult the denizens of GN in their coronation planning.

There is a disturbing absence of awareness of historical precedent and far too much sentimental tosh being bounced around.

I don't care one way or another about Camilla being crowned. She seems to be a great support to Charles both personally and in terms of carrying out royal duties and therefore I think it should be her choice. If she wants a crown to validate her role let her have one.

silverlining48

I accept Camilla as consort but see no reason why she should be crowned.
Philip wasn’t crowned why would she be.

That’s simply a constitutional matter. If the monarch is a man his wife can have the title if Queen consort. If, on the other the monarch is a woman, her husband cannot be crowned king, or even king consort as it would mean him outranking his wife, the sovereign.

silverlining48

I accept Camilla as consort but see no reason why she should be crowned.
Philip wasn’t crowned why would she be.

In this day and age I am sure many of you will disagree with the traditional point of view, but here it is:

A woman when she marries takes her husband's rank.
This is clearly impossible when the woman is the heir to a throne, as the late Queen was when she married, so as there is no legal definition of the rank and status of a male consort of a female sovereign Phillip renounced his rights to the Greek and Danish thrones and was accorded the rank of Prince and created Duke of Edinburgh.

What exactly a man who marries a queen is entitled to causes trouble every time it occurs. Phillip II of Spain expected to be called King of England when he and Mary Tudor married and to excercise a husband's right to make decisions on behalf of his wife. Neither desire went down well with English nobility or commons.

The Dauphin Francis whom Mary Steward married demanded more or less the crown matrimonial of Scotland. The Scottish nobility saw no reason he should have it, and turned up in Paris to the wedding without it. Lord Darnley was not given it either nor was Bothwell.

Queen Victoria was miffed at the niggardly (her words not mine) grant parliament was prepared to make Prince Albert, but she certainly would have squashed any attempt on his part to call himself king.

Traditionally the legal wife of a king is crowned with him when he is crowned. There is not, and never has been any requirement that she should either be the king's first wife, or have been a virgin when she married him.

In both the German and Austrian empires there was a concept of morganatic marriage whereby the wife was not granted royal rank. - This was used when an Archduke, such as Franz Ferdinand married a noblewoman, but it has never been used in Britain.

Certainly, it has been said in our own time that Prince Henrik, the queen of Denmark's late consort was annoyed that he had not been given the title of king, but it seems this was as much senile dementia speaking as anything else.

Even Josephine Bonaparte succeeded in being crowned, which in her day was only possible because she persuaded the pope that she had always felt guilty that she and Napoleon had only married in a civil ceremony, and she in all haste somehow peruaded Napoleon to have a religious ceremony performed by a priest prior to the coronation.

Camilla and or Charles has sound legal precedent behind them, however old fashioned you may find it. It would frankly be an intorable insult to her if she was not.

Lucca

Can’t work up the energy to be bothered. To me the whole coronation malarkey is an irrelevance

Snap!
We have more to be concerned about than all this nonsense.

MawtheMerrier

Fortunately Buckingham Palace is unlikely to consult the denizens of GN in their coronation planning.

There is a disturbing absence of awareness of historical precedent and far too much sentimental tosh being bounced around.

This ^^