CAMILLA TO BE CALLED QUEEN… WHY NOT?

Lady63 · February 10, 2011, 01:12:21 AM

http://dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/227928/Camilla-to-be-called-Queen-Why-not-

http://dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/227779

I don't agree with what the writers are putting forward but well may she be Queen Consort one day, but to honest imho she will never be respected, not they way the present monarch is and certainly not the way Diana would have been had she been allowed to become Queen Consort and imho respect is something they do crave. They want legitimacy imho even if it means having the rules re written for them by the church.

If Charles and Camilla truly valued respect, they would just stick to the 'Princess Consort' title they said they 'intended' to use once Charles ascended the throne. Their actions during their respective marriages must have consquences. Imho you can't just go through life doing wrong and not expect it to come back and bite you at some later stage. Or is that just for the 'little folk'? You can't cheat and make misery then expect everyone to fall into line just because of who you are or again is that just for the 'little folk'? Imho it doesn't work that way.

Imho Charles and Camilla would have had garnered respect if they had realised that by their actions they ruined whatever chance they had of being 'King and Queen' and just accepted that 'King and Princess Consort' was the next best thing.

I guess arrogance and a sense of entitlement just haven't pervaded our young but it is rife through the so called highest family in the land too.

Regards,
Lady63

Kate · February 10, 2011, 01:56:44 AM

:goodpost: Lady63, I agree wholeheartedly. :yesss: You said it very well. Camilla should be Princess Consort...and NOT Queen Camilla...

Trudie · February 10, 2011, 02:05:41 AM

I Agree wholeheartedly Lady63. Years ago Leona Helmsley famously declared only "The Little People pay Taxes" Well it came back and bit her with a stint in a Federal Prison for tax evasion. No one is above the consequences for their actions.

sillyjobug · February 10, 2011, 02:36:45 AM

Sorry to be the lone dissenter here, but I agree with the article. I like Camilla. I think she makes Charles happy, and he likewise makes her happy, and that's good. It's all anyone needs, really.

With regards to the idea that she somehow doesn't "deserve" to be styled Queen, or that she and Charles should have to pay for their mistakes... I can't help but disagree. Obviously our members here are a bit more into the royals than your average Joe, so I know I won't be changing any opinions around here, but oh well. People throughout history have been crowned King or Queen who absolutely by no means deserved it. People who did truly terrible, evil, wrong things. Charles and Camilla cheated on their spouses. They didn't start wars, commit fraud, or drown a bag of puppies. They had an affair. Yes, it's wrong. It's not a nice thing to do, it's not particularly moral, and it goes against the Church. But millions of people do it every single day and none of them are punished for it, not beyond the normal divorce and potential social stigma. So, yes, they did a bad thing. And then they got their divorces, and got years of being dragged through the mud by press and people. And they've worked hard and stuck together and dealt with it all. To me that proves they love each other, and while that doesn't make it okay it does make it understandable.

So, you're right, Trudie. Nobody is above the consequences of their actions. Leona Helmsley got what she deserved for committing a federal offense. But even that isn't the same as Charles and Camilla. What they did broke no laws, federal or otherwise. Yes, they broke a commandment, but that's the between them and god. And they broke their marriage vows, which is between them and their former spouses. They sorted it out just fine, by getting divorces just like everyone else does in similar circumstances. They have faced consequences, lots of them. They've been called every name in the book by people all over the world. Their family has been accused of murder (admittedly by a crazy person, but still counts). They've been paying for this for 15 years. They've paid their dues. Can't they just be allowed to be happy now?

sandy · February 10, 2011, 02:57:20 AM

I would not say that people go unpunished for adultery or don't "pay for it" in one way or another. SOme dramas are played out on the public stage and yes, there is a stigma. Look at John Edwards, he ran for both Vice President and President, and his affair (cheating on his cancer stricken wife) was discovered which in effect ruined any polliticial future. Also, Governor Sanford was cheating on his wife and was also ruined politically. And privately, adutery can tear apart families, estrange children from their parents and do all sorts of damage. Some psychological counseling is needed as a result. Charles had to hire a spin doctor to attempt to rehabiilitate his and Camilla's reputations. Camilla was critized for her acceptance of an invitation to Diana's memorial service. Some adore Camilla but OTOH some don't forget how she hurt Diana. And also because "millions" commit adultery it doesn't make it "better." The same could be said for people stealng, because "millions" due it, it doesn't make it right. The jury is out on whether Camilla will use the style Prncess Consort or be Queen.

I also don't see Camilla-Charles story as a "great love." He more or less considered her unsuitable to be the mother of his heirs which is why he looked elsewhere for a wife. I think he agreed that she was "mistress material." Diana's going along with the arrangement would have kept Camila in the categry of Mistress. Frankly, I don't think anything or anybody would make the Prnce Happy since he is a malcontent.. I think Camilla retreats to Raymill to keep herself sane

I thnk the bad part of C and C was not just the cheating but their machinations deprived Diana of realhappiness. SHe was just as entited to happiness She coud have met a man who adored her and woud have been faithfull had Camia not vetted Diana to Charlles and "mentored" Diana SHe shoulld have backed off and let the Wales have a rea marriage

And C and C were never deprived They helped themelves to happiness for years despite being married to others

Windsor · February 10, 2011, 03:05:18 AM

The article even with its tacky language is quite right, and actually very accurate in describing the Duchess of Cornwall and her ratings so to speak. :thumbsup:

She is being accepted - FACT
She is being respected - FACT
She is increasing her workload - FACT
She is not cooking for Prince Charles - FACT
She has a brilliant sense of humour - FACT
She is Princess of Wales - FACT
She will be Queen - FACT

-----

Do the maths! :thumbsup:

sandy · February 10, 2011, 03:12:46 AM

Call me cynicall but part of the spin is that if something is said enough people will beleive it To say the east I think Camilla is contrversial and not universally beoved I do agree that it was aways Chares plan Not to use Princess Consort for her

I would add that Camia forged a very skilfulll campaign (not in a good way to get to this point in her life

Lady63 · February 10, 2011, 03:21:44 AM

Quote from: Windsor on February 10, 2011, 03:05:18 AM
The article even with its tacky language is quite right, and actually very accurate in describing the Duchess of Cornwall and her ratings so to speak. :thumbsup:

She is being accepted - FACT
She is being respected - FACT
She is increasing her workload - FACT
She is not cooking for Prince Charles - FACT
She has a brilliant sense of humour - FACT
She is Princess of Wales - FACT
She will be Queen - FACT

-----

Do the maths! :thumbsup:

They are immoral and broke their individual vows before God - Fact
They, in their immoral behaviour destroyed the life of another woman - Fact
Wrong is wrong - Fact.
I wouldn't want to be them for all the tea in china - Fact.

Regards,
lady63

Windsor · February 10, 2011, 03:38:49 AM

Quote from: Lady63 on February 10, 2011, 03:21:44 AM
They are immoral and broke their individual vows before God - Fact

God does not exist - FACT :P
They all brought it upon themselves - FACT
I am not disputing that, but hey... who is perfect! - FACT

:thumbsup:

Mike · February 10, 2011, 03:53:41 AM

Quote from: Windsor on February 10, 2011, 03:38:49 AM
God does not exist - FACT :P

Hmmm. Do I hear thunder approaching? :windsor:

I've sort of changed my mind on this issue of Camilla's title. Speaking only for myself, it's just semantics and will not turn back the clock. One day Charles will be dead and King William and Queen Catherine will be on the throne.

God Save Queen Elizabeth. PLEASE!! :happyuk: :happyusa:

Lady63 · February 10, 2011, 05:42:39 AM

Quote from: Windsor on February 10, 2011, 03:38:49 AM
Quote from: Lady63 on February 10, 2011, 03:21:44 AM
They are immoral and broke their individual vows before God - Fact

God does not exist - FACT :P
They all brought it upon themselves - FACT
I am not disputing that, but hey... who is perfect! - FACT

:thumbsup:

You may not believe in God, that's your choice, I guess I won't be seeing you in heaven - Fact
But Charles and Camilla do and they did break vows made individually before their God - Fact.
God does not take too lightly the broken vows of his believers - Fact.
Whose perfect, my God - Fact.

Regards,
Lady63

Windsor · February 10, 2011, 07:06:20 AM

My point proven - I rest my case!

The lifestyles of others does not have to suit your ideals. Just because you do not believe in it does not mean it is wrong. Indeed, a lot went on in the 'War of the Wales's' which was quite horrible - and that came from all involved. Nobody is perfect, not even the Quuen or the Pope.

I do not believe people are too bothered these days about the wrath and power of God - otherwise people would live to perfection in order to gain entry into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Lady63 · February 10, 2011, 08:15:47 AM

Maybe Windsor you should take a look at the comments of the said article. Seems the overwhelming majority of posters commenting do not see what you see. A small proportion, you might say but imho a representation of, I daresay, a larger silent majority. At the end of the day though, the apathy towards this couple reflects our sad society today and imvho it is a sad society. That couldn't be said of the population of 1936, when they found out about Wallis Simpson they were very focal and the government at least had the backbone to stand up and say no to a King no less. It's sad they are not so today, we might have had more to look forward to and the monarchy might have still had a lot more respect for it than it does today, in regards to all but the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh.

Regards,
Lady63

cinrit · February 10, 2011, 11:35:30 AM

I started to write a post in defense of the title Queen Consort, but deleted it. I just want to say that I agree with sillyjobug and Windsor, and that it's not our place to decide punishment for moral lapses that happened decades ago.

Cindy

sandy · February 10, 2011, 02:46:41 PM

I would like to mention a story that happened in the US yesterday. A U.S. Congressman got caught cheating via Craigs List. He lied, said he was divorced and 39 and "classy". He sent a lady shirtless pics of himself He really has a wife, a son and I doubt he's "classy." He sent her shirtless photos. The man resigned when caught so evidently there may be some other "skeletons" he doesn't want to come out of the closet. So people aren't so blase about a man cheating on his spouse. Nobody said well everybody does it and persuaded him to stay. He left of his own accord knowing he'd probably be forced out by the scandal.

cinrit · February 10, 2011, 03:18:35 PM

Quote from: sandy on February 10, 2011, 02:46:41 PM
I would like to mention a story that happened in the US yesterday. A U.S. Congressman got caught cheating via Craigs List. He lied, said he was divorced and 39 and "classy". He sent a lady shirtless pics of himself He really has a wife, a son and I doubt he's "classy." He sent her shirtless photos. The man resigned when caught so evidently there may be some other "skeletons" he doesn't want to come out of the closet. So people aren't so blase about a man cheating on his spouse. Nobody said well everybody does it and persuaded him to stay. He left of his own accord knowing he'd probably be forced out by the scandal.

Sandy, that happened yesterday. When we talk about Charles cheating on Diana, we're talking about something that happened decades ago.

Cindy

Scarlet Flowers · February 10, 2011, 03:30:06 PM

Sillyjobug :thumbsup:

Sillyjobug, I couldn't have said it better myself!

sandy · February 10, 2011, 04:27:30 PM

Quote from: cinrit on February 10, 2011, 03:18:35 PM
Quote from: sandy on February 10, 2011, 02:46:41 PM
I would like to mention a story that happened in the US yesterday. A U.S. Congressman got caught cheating via Craigs List. He lied, said he was divorced and 39 and "classy". He sent a lady shirtless pics of himself He really has a wife, a son and I doubt he's "classy." He sent her shirtless photos. The man resigned when caught so evidently there may be some other "skeletons" he doesn't want to come out of the closet. So people aren't so blase about a man cheating on his spouse. Nobody said well everybody does it and persuaded him to stay. He left of his own accord knowing he'd probably be forced out by the scandal.

Sandy, that happened yesterday. When we talk about Charles cheating on Diana, we're talking about something that happened decades ago.

Cindy

I was responding to the "everybody does it" and nobody pays for adultery anymore argument. The point I am making is that nobody truly "gets away with it" even if they think they do. And if adultery is so "common" why did this man feel compelled to give up his seat in Congress?

Princesse Grace · February 10, 2011, 04:49:31 PM

Quote from: Lady63 on February 10, 2011, 01:12:21 AM
http://dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/227928/Camilla-to-be-called-Queen-Why-not-

http://dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/227779

I don't agree with what the writers are putting forward but well may she be Queen Consort one day, but to honest imho she will never be respected, not they way the present monarch is and certainly not the way Diana would have been had she been allowed to become Queen Consort and imho respect is something they do crave. They want legitimacy imho even if it means having the rules re written for them by the church.

If Charles and Camilla truly valued respect, they would just stick to the 'Princess Consort' title they said they 'intended' to use once Charles ascended the throne. Their actions during their respective marriages must have consquences. Imho you can't just go through life doing wrong and not expect it to come back and bite you at some later stage. Or is that just for the 'little folk'? You can't cheat and make misery then expect everyone to fall into line just because of who you are or again is that just for the 'little folk'? Imho it doesn't work that way.

Imho Charles and Camilla would have had garnered respect if they had realised that by their actions they ruined whatever chance they had of being 'King and Queen' and just accepted that 'King and Princess Consort' was the next best thing.

I guess arrogance and a sense of entitlement just haven't pervaded our young but it is rife through the so called highest family in the land too.

Regards,
Lady63

I agree,Camilla never Queen ,just consort ,and it is too much for me too :ugh:
Just my opinion.

Lothwen · February 10, 2011, 05:33:28 PM

Maybe this will be a little crass but....

Regardless of whether or not Camilla takes the style of Princess of Wales today, and Queen Consort tomorrow, those titles will never be Diana's. It's not like Parliament will posthumasly name Diana Queen Consort of England once Charles ascends the throne. She does not have designs on the Princess of Wales title either-it's not like it has been copyrighted.

According to some, Charles and Camilla have not yet paid for their actions. What would you like them to do? Spend time in jail? According to some of you, they are in a loveless marriage that they created themselves. Isn't that enough of a prison? IMO, Charles's oldest son is showing that he wants nothing to do with his father and his family-isn't that another form of punishment?

I have no problem with Camilla being styled "Queen Consort." Why? Because I don't think Diana needs me to fight her battles for her. She died being one of the most beloved women in the world. History books will be filled with glowing praise for "The People's Princess." Camilla will be remembered only as the homewrecker who [killed] the beloved Diana. So let her have the title. It's not like it means that much anyways.

Windsor · February 10, 2011, 05:44:36 PM

Quote from: Lady63 on February 10, 2011, 08:15:47 AM
Maybe Windsor you should take a look at the comments of the said article. Seems the overwhelming majority of posters commenting do not see what you see.

And most of them are from countries that have nothing to do with the British Monarchy. :shrug:

QuoteThat couldn't be said of the population of 1936

Why of course, that was in 1936 - ask the Queen if anything has changed since then? You will find that almost everything has changed in society, government, laws, etc etc...

People on one hand claim the Monarchy is out of date, and then they claim they are ahead of times. I wish they would make their minds up.

QuoteI would like to mention a story that happened in the US yesterday. A U.S. Congressman got caught cheating via Craigs List. He lied, said he was divorced and 39 and "classy". He sent a lady shirtless pics of himself He really has a wife, a son and I doubt he's "classy."

The 'wrong doings' of Prince Charles, the Duchess of Cornwall and the Late Diana Spencer happened decades ago. Your point being?

Lady63 · February 10, 2011, 07:52:53 PM

Quote
That couldn't be said of the population of 1936

Why of course, that was in 1936 - ask the Queen if anything has changed since then? You will find that almost everything has changed in society, government, laws, etc etc... Windsor.

And your point is? Just because the date on the calendar has changed doens't mean that standards and morals need to. Wrong, no matter the colour people wish to paint it is still a wrong. And on a final note, we should not feel any sort of glee for the fact that a person's word has no value. How sad is it, that our society only holds liars and cheats accountable and bays for retribution when it involves money, when it involves people and their lives, well they just couldn't care less so long as they are the one not on rough end of the pineapple.

Regards,
Lady63

amabel · February 10, 2011, 08:35:56 PM

Quote from: Mike on February 10, 2011, 03:53:41 AM
Quote from: Windsor on February 10, 2011, 03:38:49 AM
God does not exist - FACT :P
Hmmm. Do I hear thunder approaching? :windsor:

I've sort of changed my mind on this issue of Camilla's title. Speaking only for myself, it's just semantics and will not turn back the clock. One day Charles will be dead and King William and Queen Catherine will be on the throne.

God Save Queen Elizabeth. PLEASE!! :happyuk: :happyusa:

what difference will it make that William and Kate are King and queen (if there is a monarchy still then). I don't see William as anything particularly special.. and I get the feeling that he's not that keen on the post of King .. so possibly, in another 20 years, things may have changed ot the point where the British public no longer want a monarchy and he does not want to be king..

Windsor · February 10, 2011, 09:16:01 PM

Lady63,

You will probably not believe me when I say that I strongly agree with you in regards to wrong doings being wrong regardless of how you portray or colour it. Quite right, wrong is wrong - but everyone goes about doing things in a wrong manner at least once in their lives. Everybody deserves a second chance, and I am happy to report that the Prince and Princess of Wales have been given this second chance, and they have impressed many along the way.

Both are happy, the people are happy with their work and the Monarchy as a whole is now stable and secure.

Mike · February 10, 2011, 09:46:48 PM

Quote from: amabel on February 10, 2011, 08:35:56 PM
what difference will it make that William and Kate are King and queen (if there is a monarchy still then).

Because it will mean Charles and (assuming she survives him) his mis . . . uh, second wife will no longer be center stage.

Diana's son will be monarch and, although I'm sure William will be devastated at his father's death, he being on the throne will be a much better reality than his father being there.

IMHO, of course. God Save The Queen!