Camilla to be "Princess Consort"--were we intentionally mislead?

Monika · September 21, 2008, 11:37:59 PM

My answer is a definite YES! I never believed she would really use that title, but I didn't expect the REAL plans to see the light of day quite so soon.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/4252795.stm

Trudie · September 22, 2008, 02:39:28 AM

Charles counts on the public having extremely short memories. :orchid:

Monika · September 22, 2008, 02:47:53 AM

Quote from: Trudie on September 22, 2008, 02:39:28 AM
Charles counts on the public having extremely short memories. :orchid:

THAT and remembering history as he has rewritten it. Dream on... :)

Fabulous Fake · September 22, 2008, 08:22:00 AM

Quote from BBC article

''When the Prince of Wales, 56, becomes king, 57-year-old Camilla will not be known as Queen Camilla but as the Princess Consort, Clarence House added.''

I don't think it was ever said that Camilla would not be Queen. :shrug:

We were carefully told that she wouldn't be using the titles Princess of Wales or Queen Camilla not that she wouldn't be having those titles.

I was never mislead intentionally or otherwise.

Here's another quote from the same article

''Of those who responded to a Populus poll, 32% said they would support Charles if he remarried, while 29% were opposed.

However, most people - 38% - said they did not care.''

I'm with the majority on this one. :laugh:

lurker · September 22, 2008, 08:27:01 AM

I don't quite understand what it matters how her position will be called. She'll be Queen technically and she'll have that title de facto whether she uses it in public or not. She'll carry out the functions of a Queen and take part in the events, have the protocol status etc. So what difference would it make if they change the name of her position? Either the British want her to do that job or they don't but changing the name of her position won't make a difference at all.

Fabulous Fake · September 22, 2008, 09:43:54 AM

May I ask you lurker if you are in the UK? :hmm:

I think this matter is perceived differently by UK residents and our transatlantic posters.

porsche · September 22, 2008, 09:54:30 AM

I am now lost in reason, why he married Camilla.She is old, ugly and from our aristo sources any more his soulmate.She looks sour in the snaps from Twickenham, Charles is very happy like small child claping.She took the limo with bodyguards in cars to guard her next Wednesday without reason, driving around Vauxhall?Why?Is she nervous?nervous from Katie Waitie?Or Chuck felt out of her claws.They have nothing in common, they slept and she could speak with her and she like sycophant shook her head and manipulated with him.She doesn't care about his doodling, she does't know arts, nature, gardens...

Monika · September 22, 2008, 09:57:03 AM

Quote from: Fabulous Fake

i]''When the Prince of Wales, 56, becomes king, 57-year-old Camilla will not be known as Queen Camilla but as the Princess Consort, Clarence House added.''[/i]

I don't think it was ever said that Camilla would not be Queen. :shrug:

We were carefully told that she wouldn't be using the titles Princess of Wales or Queen Camilla not that she wouldn't be having those titles.

Yes, it's proving to be a game of semantics and that goes back to my original point that CH wanted to mislead people. They wanted to make the whole thing a bit more palatable.

Monika · September 22, 2008, 10:00:14 AM

Quote from: Fabulous Fake on September 22, 2008, 09:43:54 AM
I think this matter is perceived differently by UK residents and our transatlantic posters.

I beg to differ. I've read plenty of articles on the subject in UK papers and the comments are mostly negative and echo the sentiments expressed here.

Fabulous Fake · September 22, 2008, 10:23:22 AM

I'm not arguing about what you may have read Monika.

My point is that the vast majority of UK residents just don't care and Charles and Camilla have no impact on their lives whatsoever.

Fabulous Fake · September 22, 2008, 10:25:40 AM

Quote from: Monika on September 22, 2008, 09:57:03 AM
Yes, it's proving to be a game of semantics and that goes back to my original point that CH wanted to mislead people. They wanted to make the whole thing a bit more palatable.

Honestly Monika imho that is just stuff and nonsense.
You can't seriously believe that residents of the UK are stupid? :sigh:

Windsor · September 22, 2008, 10:27:36 AM

Quote from: lurker on September 22, 2008, 08:27:01 AM
I don't quite understand what it matters how her position will be called. She'll be Queen technically and she'll have that title de facto whether she uses it in public or not. She'll carry out the functions of a Queen and take part in the events, have the protocol status etc. So what difference would it make if they change the name of her position? Either the British want her to do that job or they don't but changing the name of her position won't make a difference at all.

The voice of reason! :thumbsup:

Windsor · September 22, 2008, 10:30:19 AM

Quote from: Monika on September 22, 2008, 10:00:14 AM
I beg to differ. I've read plenty of articles on the subject in UK papers and the comments are mostly negative and echo the sentiments expressed here.

What papers would those be? The Daily Mail maybe? Or would it be the News of the World? Or do you go by what the online tabloids like FemaleFist say? :teehee:

Quote from: Fabulous Fake on September 22, 2008, 10:25:40 AMYou can't seriously believe that residents of the UK are stupid? :sigh:

We aren't stupid, that is for sure! Those that care have accepted the royal marriage, those that don't care well, just don't care... those against the marriage are fanatic supporters of the Late Diana, Princess of Wales who are obsessed with everything Diana and can't come to terms that people move on, ahh by the way, those are mainly across the pond in America, where people seem to adore celebrities like Gods! ???

Jupiter · September 22, 2008, 10:37:39 AM

i suppose it is the people who believe that charles never lies and is not capable of being sneaky, who are the ones who he manages to mislead time and time again. charles intentionally misled them in the same way he intentionally misled them when he spent years denying he was going to marry camilla at all and in the way he intentionally misled them when he initially denied that camilla was his mistress in the wake of the morton book and instead insisted that it was all in diana's head; she was mad.

but some of us who have watched his actions and have come to understand how he operates, are not that easily misled and certainly did not gullibly swallow his declarations that camilla would not be queen when he married her.

charles has a habit of denying something and then eventually coming clean at times when it suits him or when he has been forced into a tight spot. he eventually confessed camilla was his mistress in his 1994 interview after the tampax tapes of the previous year revealed that he had been lying when he had earlier denied camilla was his lover and diana was just mad (forced into a tight spot). he eventually married camilla 8 years after diana's death when it was safe to do so. and now he admits he plans to make camilla queen a few years after claiming it was not the plan. i am not surprised by this latest news from his camp. it is an undisputable fact: in charles' world, events which he says would never happen, always come to pass.

how ironic that diana is slammed for manipulation by people who support the person who has shown himself to be the most skilful master of all in the art.

Fabulous Fake · September 22, 2008, 10:43:56 AM

May I ask Jupiter how YOU can be so certain of Prince Charles's intentions? :hmm:

Monika · September 22, 2008, 11:06:46 AM

Quote from: Fabulous Fake on September 22, 2008, 10:23:22 AM
My point is that the vast majority of UK residents just don't care and Charles and Camilla have no impact on their lives whatsoever.

For those who feel that way about the monarchy in general, yes, I suppose they don't care about C&C. But for those who have admired the selfless dedication and integrity of HM, I think the issue matters quite a bit.

Monika · September 22, 2008, 11:08:51 AM

Quote from: Fabulous Fake on September 22, 2008, 10:25:40 AM
Honestly Monika imho that is just stuff and nonsense.
You can't seriously believe that residents of the UK are stupid? :sigh:

I never even suggested such a thing. As I said, it's a game of semantics and clearly CH feels a need to play it.

Monika · September 22, 2008, 11:18:17 AM

Quote from: Windsor on September 22, 2008, 10:30:19 AM
... those against the marriage are fanatic supporters of the Late Diana, Princess of Wales who are obsessed with everything Diana and can't come to terms that people move on, ahh by the way, those are mainly across the pond in America, where people seem to adore celebrities like Gods! ???

I never saw Diana as a mere celebrity. She was a gifted human being who accomplished much in her all too short life, despite tremendous odds. And yes, people move on, but some would like us to move on to a different version of history.

Funny how those who support Diana are called fanatics whenever the going gets tough. We 'fanatics' accepted and admired Diana, flaws and all. It appears to be the Camilla supporters who fail to see her blemishes, as crystal clear as they are.

Windsor · September 22, 2008, 11:25:17 AM

I am no fan of Camilla, neither am I a fan of Monarchy - a loyal subject of the Crown would be more accurate! :thumbsup: I do see her errors in life, I recognise her wrong doings, the Duchess of Cornwall in her private life has not done all too well, her respect for the marriage of the Prince of Wales to Diana was indeed rather nonexistent, that being said however, I don't dwell on the past, I move on, I accept people as they are, with errors and all. But given their private life is none of my business I take no notice of it all, and focus instead on what I see from their work, their official public lives. I just want to stress the importance of the private life of someone is a private matter.

Monika · September 22, 2008, 11:29:13 AM

A monarch lives and breathes the role. What are they without intergrity and respect? I think the private side matters quite a bit.

Windsor · September 22, 2008, 11:32:43 AM

The private life of Her Majesty is a private matter, the same thing applies to every single individual person on this earth. :thumbsup:

Monika · September 22, 2008, 11:37:35 AM

Quote from: Windsor on September 22, 2008, 11:32:43 AM
The private life of Her Majesty is a private matter, the same thing applies to every single individual person on this earth. :thumbsup:

Are you suggesting that if the Queen had an affair and her marriage was destroyed because of it and she ended up marrying that person, all would be fine and dandy???? She would remain a respected monarch???? Hmmm...............................

Windsor · September 22, 2008, 11:38:42 AM

We would not find out! :thumbsup:

Monika · September 22, 2008, 11:48:42 AM

Quote from: Windsor on September 22, 2008, 11:38:42 AM
We would not find out! :thumbsup:

You did not answer my question, but I understand why.

Rasta Watermelon · September 22, 2008, 11:49:29 AM

Were the people who live in the UK & Commonwealth countries mislead on this? I don't know if we were to be honest. I know, I wasn't because I had a feeling she would get more than just the Duchess of Cornwell title one day. So did my Nan, who was a massive Diana fan, but lost interest in the monarchy the day Diana died. Although she does have a soft spot for Sophie and Prince Edward.

I agree with Jupiter when it comes to Charles he can be sneaky when it suits his own needs.

*sort of off topic* I wonder if this news is related to the apparent change of plans for Prince William for the next few years? It has been said, that Charles is happy about William's plans for next few years, because it allows him and Camilla to be in the spotlight for a few more years.