Duchess Camilla might end up ‘Queen Consort’ not Princess Consort after all

wenn21423524

Prince Charles wanted to marry Camilla Parker Bowles for years. But he was patient about the whole thing. That was one thing I was reminded of when I was rereading The Diana Chronicles for our CB Book Club. Camilla spent about seven years in limbo as a “girlfriend” to the Prince of Wales. He paid for her upkeep, she got security officers and he even bought her a house close to Highgrove. Charles plotted and plotted. His PR team worked on it. And then in 2005, Charles and Camilla married, with the understanding that she would never, ever be called the Princess of Wales. She would go by the Duchess of Cornwall instead. Charles’ people also let it be known that Camilla would never be called Queen Consort. Charles was going to basically make up a title for Camilla once he became king – the title being thrown around was “Princess Consort.” But now that nine years has passed and people have gotten used to Duchess Camilla… well, maybe she’ll be called “Queen Camilla” after all.

A new poll conducted by YouGov conducted earlier this week has shown for the first time a huge jump in public support for the Duchess of Cornwall taking the title of Queen once Prince Charles accedes to the throne, with a marked reduction in support for the alternative title of Princess Consort.

Previously, Camilla has seen a slow but steady increase in her popularity and acceptance over time, but this latest poll comes to show a clear and new found support for the Duchess of Cornwall, who celebrates her 67th birthday next month. In the poll, 53% of those surveyed said that Camilla should take on the traditional title of Queen Consort, with just 32% saying she should be Princess Consort.

Controversy has existed for almost a decade, ever since the Prince of Wales married Camilla in 2005, over what title Camilla should eventually take as consort. At the time of the wedding, the Palace said it was the intention that Camilla would be known as Princess Consort upon Prince Charles’s accession, though many experts were, and remain, sceptical about this because of the practicalities of the move. Since the death of Diana, Princess of Wales in 1997, public feeling towards Camilla was ambivalent, with many taking a dislike to her because of the role they believed she played in the breaking up of Prince Charles and Diana’s marriage.

Opinion on the Duchess of Cornwall becoming Queen has always been divided, though polling has seen a continual increase in public warmth towards the Duchess over the years, culminating in this latest poll, conducted by YouGov on Monday.

By law, Camilla will automatically take the title of Her Majesty The Queen as soon as Prince Charles becomes King. The proposed title of Princess Consort has never been used in Britain before and has little precedent elsewhere in the world. An act of parliament would be required to reduce Camilla’s title from Queen to Princess Consort and many warn such a move could create a dangerous precedent for future use.

The polling could show Camilla being in good stead to take on the Queen Consort’s crown upon Prince Charles succession, something many a decade ago would have thought unthinkable. Despite the title of Princess Consort being unheard of in the British constitution, there has been precedent for Camilla adopting a different title out of deference to the late Princess of Wales. In 2005, she chose to be known as ‘Duchess of Cornwall’ instead of ‘Princess of Wales’ out of deference to Diana. Legally, Camilla remains the Princess of Wales though uses the title of Duchess of Cornwall in England and also around the world instead.

[From Royal Central]

Yeah, this is just a semantic debate, but it does show how the ghost of Diana still lingers over the current royal family. I think the heated debate would have been if Charles wanted Camilla to be called the Princess of Wales. There would have been riots! Or something. It just would not have gone over well. The compromise of having her become the Duchess of Cornwall was a smart call. And yes, now that the British people have gotten comfortable with the idea of Camilla, I guess most of them don’t really care if she’s the Queen Consort. Besides, it could be another decade before we have to deal with this issue, you know?

wenn21427845

wenn21432399

Photos courtesy of WENN.

 

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

179 Responses to “Duchess Camilla might end up ‘Queen Consort’ not Princess Consort after all”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Kaya says:

    This whole royal-family thing is such a farce.

  2. eliza says:

    On a highly superficial note, someone needs to tell Camilla she is in desperate need of a good support bra.

  3. NewWester says:

    Camilla is giving some serious side eye/bitch face to someone in that first photo

  4. Daz London says:

    This was always where it was headed.
    Camilla could never be called ‘Princess’ because it would mean replacing Diana.
    But Diana was never a queen

  5. bisolar says:

    I really don’t care what she’s called.So far it’s not princess of Wales.Besides shouldn’t people have forgiven her by now Diana’s sons who adored her have managed to do so.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      What choice do they have? She’s married to their father. They can either make peace with her or strain their relationship with him. And who knows how they feel in their hearts?

      It’s not my place to ” forgive” her, but I will never forget that she and Prince a Charles never gave his marriage a chance, and lied, manipulated and humiliated Diana in such an unfeeling way from the beginning. Camilla has done a lot of good to redeem herself, but while I admire that, I think she was and always will be a selfish, power hungry woman who treats Prince Charles like a baby so she can control him. She’s the mother he never had. They are not nice people.

      • Chrissy says:

        I agree. Both were conniving and underhanded
        in the way they manipulated not only Diana but
        everyone. Diana’s memory is still well-loved
        even 17 years after her death. If they try
        to elevate Camilla’s status to Queen of
        anything they might incur the wrath of all
        those who remember Diana fondly.
        The backlash might be unprecedented.

      • bettyrose says:

        I’m so glad I’m not the only one who feels this way. Regardless of whether Diana had emotional problems, they treated her horribly, and even the most emotional stable of teenagers would have struggled to deal with that scenario.

      • RedWeatherTiger says:

        I agree. I hope that the Queen outlives Charles, and the crown goes straight to William.

      • LadySlippers says:

        •GoodNames•

        The boys DID have a choice and they chose the loving and forgiving route. That is pretty commendable regardless of the many reasons they could have chosen otherwise.

      • Dani says:

        I agree with you to an extent but people keep forgetting Diana wasn’t a saint.

      • FLORC says:

        Absolutely, Diana’s memory is glorified to an extreme! She was human and flawed. She played the press game very well. She was a Lady by birth and was not afraid of reminding people that.
        She did a lot of good and a lot of bad.
        Too forget the good or the bad to to not remember the person that lived, but more a work of fiction.

        Regarding William and Harry. Their actions speak more that they forgave whatever involvement she had as 1 of their father’s mistresses (and not even the top 1) while married to their mother. Or they are master manipulators ready to strike when Camilla’s guard is down.

        We don’t know what they really think of her, but they seem to be fine with how happy she makes their father. And William has a hard time hiding his contempt for things he hates. Paps, work, etc…

      • Ronia says:

        I never knew Diana’s sons had forgiven Camilla. On the contrary. On a number of occasions one or the other or both have muttered words showing exactly the opposite. Not to mention their distance from Camilla and her family except on official royal occasions. No, I don’t think Diana’s sons have forgiven Camilla and they shouldn’t. Charles and Camilla re two cheap cheating idiots who drove a nearly teenager young woman to nuts stage. Liars and cheaters. Yet, very good PR products, no doubt about it.

      • LadySlippers says:

        •Ronia•

        Actually they have indeed forgiven her. It was William that asked Charles to meet Camilla and Camilla was a nervous wreck meeting both boys.

        Camilla’s ONLY requirement to accepting Charles’ marriage proposal was the that the boys’ give their marriage their whole-hearted blessing. They freely gave it. There is no rancour there — both boys like Camilla and she them. That’s not to say their relationship is perfect but it is not the drama fest people claim.

        I can list MANY reliable sources that back up my comments. Anything else is honestly fiction.

      • Nikki says:

        People always say Charles and Camilla never gave his marriage to Diana a chance, but a book I read stated Charles was faithful to Diana in the beginning, but after Diana’s insecurities and eating disorder became too much for him, he turned to Camilla for companionship, and their long love affair resumed. Not as dastardly as all along, and I don’t think he was raised to cope with an emotionally needy woman. Not right, but not the most dastardly man, I think. I think that’s why his sons forgave him and warmed to Camilla; they knew he and Diana did not make each other happy.

      • wolfpup says:

        Ronia, I couldn’t agree more, very wise indeed.

      • homegrrrl says:

        I said the same thing on a Camilla post, “is it just me, or does this woman remind me of the vile way they manipulated Diana”. Only one other poster replied, “it’s just you”. I guess I’m in my 40′s and I lived Diana’s heartbreak over the cheating scandal, so while Diana wasn’t a saint, I certainly don’t feel Camilla should be called queen. Why not just “consort”? Feh. I don’t know the “laws”.

  6. The Original Mia says:

    I objected to Princess of Wales. It was just too soon, even though it was years after Diana’s death. Charles has honored Diana’s memory. Camilla is his wife and she should be his Queen Consort. And Camilla has shown herself to be a capable, hardworking, funny, personable Duchess.

    Kaiser, did you see the picture of Angelina & Camilla? They met yesterday to discuss rape victims.

    • LadySlippers says:

      •Mia•

      Agreed.

      In fact, I think soon they should start calling Camilla Pss of Wales. It’s time.

      And I haven’t seen the pics, do you have links? Could you post them please?

      • wolfpup says:

        Please don’t call her the Princess of Wales – EVER! I don’t think that Diana would be able to stomach that; the usurpation of her and all, as well as disturbing my fond memories.

        I don’t object to whatever else she is called. It’s not that I forgive her, I just don’t care…everything has already been said, and is over.

      • LadySlippers says:

        •wolfpup•

        Actually, Diana before her death and come to peace with them. Charles and Diana were settling into a very nice warm friendship and were co-parenting beautifully. Diana even acknowledged that they should marry and she would have known that Camilla would rightfully be called Pss of Wales.

        So unfortunately, I cannot support your statements as they simply aren’t true.

      • The Original Mia says:

        Thanks, GracePM! I couldn’t find another link. I can’t stomach Lainey and I hate how she was dismissive of Camilla’s dedication of rape victims.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Thank you •Mia• and •Grace•!

        It’s important to give credit where credit is due.

      • sunsetsnow says:

        She should be using Princess of Wales. It’s her right as his wife.

      • bluhare says:

        Camilla may have every right to that title, but Diana owned it.

      • FLORC says:

        Wolfpup
        Agree with LadySlippers here. And Bluhare.
        Diana owned that title and was great when using it to do good.
        But Diana did not create that title and was not the 1st. She had it because she married the Prince of Wales.

        At this point it’s a lot of people holding more malice towards Camilla than Diana towards the end of her life did.
        Diana was not Jennifer Aniston. She got over her ex and moved on.
        *cough* It was just a good comparison. Nobody freak out please.

        And I love Camilla’s work with Rape victims. She really has taken an informed and passionate approach to the issue. Even if it’s her team that does the bulk she appears to take the time to speak about it and be out there raising awareness to the issue.
        Camilla really is kind of awesome if people can get past the Diana part. Set that bias aside and look at the work the woman did!

      • wolfpup says:

        Although many women truly forgive their ex’s, I made peace for the children (while maintaining important boundaries). It was important to my children that I treated him kindly, and with respect (and without the contempt it took me to walk away). They didn’t ask for this specifically, but my son did not need to hear anything bad about his father. I can’t say that I harbor a grudge to this day, but I try to remember the good things, and then maintain distance. But yeah, I could work up that feeling of contempt pretty easily.

        How far Diana got in this journey no one will know. Do you think that Charles knew? Or Camilla? Is there anything that Charles has said to acknowledge that Diana was over it?

        Whether Camilla is titled Queen or not matters little to me. I’m all for moving on, but that does not change the past. Nor would I ever wish to be Camilla’s friend.

      • Bridget says:

        @Mis, she had a point. Camilla just doesn’t get the same kind of day-to-day exposure that Kate does, and the internet would have gone nuclear with a shot of Angelina Jolie and Duchess Kate together. It would have been amazing exposure for a worthy cause. Camilla may do the better work, but Kate’s the star. And its not like she has anything better going on…

      • homegrrrl says:

        Queen consort is the most politically correct title given the big picture. Let’s move on please, I can’t abide looking at her.

    • Lady D says:

      Angelina has been made a Dame of the British Empire. The DM is running the story right now.

  7. SamiHami says:

    I guess I don’t know much about how titles in the royal family work. If Camilla will officially be “by law, Camilla will automatically take the title of Her Majesty The Queen as soon as Prince Charles becomes King” why is the queen’s husband a prince instead of king?

    Just curious.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Because King trumps Queen?

    • joe spider says:

      The Queen is that because she inherited it but if Philip was king it would make him above her. Sorry if that is not clear. The husband of a “rightful” queen cannot ever be called king, but if there is a king his wife can be queen because it is a subordinate role.

    • LadySlippers says:

      •SamiHami•

      It’s not just that a man’s title usually outranks a woman’s. There actually HAVE been King Consorts throughout history, it’s just not common and there’s not much precendent.

      If QEII, and by extension the UK govt, wanted to resurrect/create a King Consort position they could. However, the BRF, especially HM herself, aren’t known as trailblazers. That’s usually something left to the Scandinavians! Lol

      But I do expect a see a King Consort sometime in the future…true equality for women will be when ‘equal’ titles are actually that and a woman and man can have an equal (really equivalent or complimentary) titles and she outranks him.

      • wolfpup says:

        Since you mention Scandinavians LS, I am wondering, who do the British most identify with? The French, the Italians, the Scandinavians, the US?

      • LadySlippers says:

        •wolfpup•

        The British Royal Family identify with….really only themselves.

        They’ve kinda distanced themselves with a lot of other Royal Families except perhaps the Greek Royal Family. That’s because Philip is a Greek prince and the exiled royals live in London.

      • AM says:

        Wolfpup,
        Philip considers himself to be Scandinavian. I wouldn’t say they’re extraordinarily close to any of the other RFs, but there is a friendliness with the Greeks and Norwegians (Norway is the closest related due to Queen Maud).

        Additionally, Charles used to be close to the Spaniards – he used to vacation with them in the Diana years. Not sure if they’re still friendly.

      • Pinky Rose says:

        But those were called King Consorts because they were Kings of another country. They couldn’t be called differently because that was already their titles. So they were some kind co-monarchs (with some reigning separatedly from their spouse and others together). The reason because there is not King Consort it is actually because the title King trumps Queen, and though it’s function is just of a consort the name could denote some confussion.

      • LadySlippers says:

        •Pinky Rose•

        There is a difference between co-Soveriegns and king consort. It is a thing. And a king consort is just like a queen consort — a title based on marriage to a Monarch.

      • LadySlippers says:

        •AM•

        Philip does consider himself Scandinavian but the British Royals are closer to Greek Royals than anyone else. The number of godchildren speaks to that (both ways). The British Royals just aren’t terribly chummy to begin with.

        Philip is part of the Greek Royal Family and that’s part of the reason they moved to London. The GRF had many ties there already…

  8. Az says:

    Queen Elizabeth looks fantastic in that lime green suit. I just really needed to put that out here. I think Camilla has been very smart about how she has behaved and carried herself after Diana’s death. And really, at this point, what she os called shouldn’t matter.

  9. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    I truly can’t stand her, or Charles, but I think Princess Consort is stupid. Call it what it is.

    I know, LadySlippers, I’m a disappointment, but I just can’t get past their cruelty towards Diana. She wasn’t perfect, but they never gave her a chance, and caused her so much pain.

    • bettyrose says:

      I’m with you on that. Personally, I don’t see why Camilla should get to have a title at all, or why it can’t be something like “mistress of the realm,” just to keep it real.

    • LadySlippers says:

      •GoodNames•

      I still love you k? I get it, I really do. My guess is this strikes a personal cord within you and that’s okay. Right now, you are owning your sh!t and that’s admirable in and of itself.

      I actually blame Charles way more than I do Camilla. It was HIS marriage he ruined. It was HIS wife he didn’t honour and cherish. It was HIS wife that he failed to properly communicate with and explain fully what he thought/felt/expected — not Camilla. The power *always* rested with Charles. Always.

      But like I’ve said before — we are all human and as humans — we are full of contradictions and complexity. It’s what makes us both beautiful and maddening.

      Love always,

      🌸LadySlippers🌸

      PS: Dahling, one of your pool boys ran over the House of Cards DVD and I’m ever so grateful for your thoughtfulness. You are SUCH a doll!. This series is so delish! I do have to manage my various estates and properties today. And meet with the dreaded accountant. 😳 She’ll be so cross when she sees my sommelier bill! But how I am supposed to live without my wine?!??? She so doesn’t understand.

      Anyhoo, I’m dying to continue to watch more episodes. We’ll discuss this during our normal weekend getaway, sound good? Yacht or island? Should we import new boys or prowl for them instead? I do so need to hunt….

      Ta ta for now Dahling! There is work to do!!!

      • Lindy says:

        “But like I’ve said before — we are all human and as humans — we are full of contradictions and complexity. It’s what makes us both beautiful and maddening.”

        I just wanted to say, on a complete tangent to this thread, that those are really lovely words and I sort of needed to hear them today. Ok, carry on…
        FWIW I think it’s fine if she gets the proper titles. I think people should move on, even though I agree that Diana as a very young woman was mistreated (though was also not a saint).

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Yes, LadySlippers, you know my history well enough to know this strikes a very personal cord with me. I just can’t with them. I totally agree that Charles was the one who was in the marriage, and the primary responsibility was his.

        Dahling, I knew you would love it! My only problem with it is it makes me crave BBQ, and that’s just sew déclassé, isn’t it dahling? Oh, let’s do prowl, these pool boys are starting to bore me. Island? Kiss kiss

      • LadySlippers says:

        •Lindy•

        Sometimes God or the Universe steers us to see the ‘golden nuggets’ we need for our soul. I’m glad my words could help. 😊

        And whether Diana was a saint or not (she wasn’t nor is anyone) is not actually relevant. In reality, Camilla isn’t really relevant either. Charles knowingly and willingly hurt his wife with his actions. That’s all that is relevant.

        •Dahling•

        Perhaps to change up our weekend getaway — we should go down South. Yes? I’m sure we can rustle up an island or plantation to rent. We can prowl for Southern Boys *and* eat some fabulous Southern cuisine. Déclassé be damned! (Every once and awhile we should be allowed to mingle and eat with the lower classes. It’s cathartic).

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Oohh, let’s drink beer from a can!

      • wolfpup says:

        Didn’t Charles feel “entitled” as the Prince of Wales, to be “wild” as other bearers of the title had? What a shitty excuse.

      • LadySlippers says:

        •Dahling•

        *eyes wide with horror*

        From a can???

        *gulp*

        I’ll try…

        *closes eyes in horror*

        •wolfpup•

        Yup. He reportedly said (whined) that all the other Princes of Wales had mistresses — why couldn’t he?

        The true story was that Charles DID have other mistresses that Diana was okay with. Diana was very good friends with Kanga while Kanga shared Charles’ bed. So while Charles was absolutely being an entitled prat, Diana unfairly painted Camilla as the ‘villainess’ in her story. And only Camilla.

      • FLORC says:

        Facts as they are. Charles had lots of mistresses.
        Diana only took large and long standing issue with Camilla and Diana could be scary if she wanted to be (tiggy anyone).
        Diana went on to sleep with married men and harrassed one of their wives resulting in ending that marriage.
        How people feel about Camilla now is holding a lot of hate that Diana, Camilla, and Charles all laid to rest in the last years of her life.

        If people want to argue the Camilla the Villainess (thanks for the spelling LS!) line they have to admit they’re disregarding his other mistresses, are carrying a torch that the wronged party (Diana) laid down long ago, and how Charles isn’t getting more shade here.

      • wolfpup says:

        Diana was jealous (like most of us who care about someone). That was the issue with Tiggy (mother-figure) and Camilla, the mistress that she could not get rid of, or compete with. Camilla always trumped! Of course Diana needed to move on (after great struggle for her marriage); for her own well-being. Giving up, and leaving a marriage is so difficult.

        I’m not judging Camilla at all, I don’t know her, but from what I hear she is jolly good lady. That’s great. I’m glad that she is using her position for good in the world, because there is so much to be done. I wish her well, but still would want nothing to do with her. Maybe if she was sorry…

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        I’m with wolfpup. Say what you will about Diana, from the very beginning of her marriage she was doomed because Camilla wasn’t going to leave Charles alone. This is almost completely Charles’ fault, to be sure, but what kind of woman skulks around a new bride’s marriage? Beyond contemptible, especially when you can see the harm done. Yes, Diana did that to other women but does that excuse Charles and Camilla? Has Camilla ever once seemed sorry? If having bread flung at her in the market is the worst of it, then she’s lucky.
        I bear her no current ill will but that was a shoddy bit of business, to be sure. And Will and Harry loving Camilla? I don’t know. Acceptance and some respect, at best. More to do with loving their father, imo.

  10. TheCountess says:

    I’m all for Camilla receiving the title of Queen Consort. The ghost of Diana (who I will always think of, in the words of Tina Brown, as a “professional hysteric”) needs to be laid to rest and everyone needs to move on from it.

    • wolfpup says:

      Diana’s ghost will never be laid to rest as long as her two boys are walking around, as well as those who loved her. Who cares about Camilla – she is a non-issue – mistress of the king, becoming so, as he willed (and as she willed against the “woman-code”), and she was elevated by him as well (against public decency-codes). Plenty of movies with the same soapy story…and decency be damned – she will ascend to the throne. Who cares? It just puts more soap-scum on the title.

      • FLORC says:

        Wolfpup
        Camilla is also loved. And she lived years of her life being threatened if she went outside. And why? Because people directed their anger that Diana once (and not always) had.
        And if this is about hating those who sleep with married people Diana ended atleast 1 or 2 marriages.

        Also, Camilla didn’t just recover from that hatred by existing. She did what Diana did. She layed the game. She stayed silent and worked hard for charities. And those lives she’s imapcted for the better care.
        I just don’t get the hate for a woman that was forgiven and never wronged any of us while Charles is walking away very well. He had the mistresses and because Diana didn’t like Camilla, but liked others Camilla is the one attacked. The reasoning is lost on me or i’m not getting something.

      • wolfpup says:

        This is not about hating others. I don’t care about Camilla and it’s just that simple. Of course she’s lovable, and I’m a really glad that she is living a life with those who do; and is involved in work, that has far-reaching effects.

        As far as infidelities, well, people do that. Charles and Camilla showed a contempt toward Diana in this way, and they are entirely responsible, *both* of them. I think that Diana had a problem with Camilla, more so than the other mistresses, because Camilla would *not budge* from her husband…you know, like go away…(like the other mistresses did). Charles was unwilling to end it as well – the jerk! Can you imagine being the wife, whose feelings are being ignored? Very, nasty situation, although it is now played like a passionate love story. The fact that Diana was merely human should not be some sort of excuse. We are all human, and live by a social contract. There is a reason!

      • Dena says:

        Unlike the others, Camillia had a lock on Charles’ emotions (his concern, time and attention) perhaps in a myriad of ways that the others didn’t. Diana probably couldn’t put her hand on just what it was about Camillia but nonetheless realized early on that “there is “something” about this one; she has staying power. And unlike the usual type of females that a # of men have in the background of their lives Camilla was neither a wall flower waiting in the background with fingers crossed to be chosen or a tolerated upper-class wife swop or even one of the guys, she was so much more integral to Charles’ inner needs. Diana could have provided frequent and Inventive sex but so could the others. And to some extent a loving family or the appearance thereof but what she couldn’t do was get through to Charles, the man.

        Diana could not compete because she couldn’t give him the emotional support–the quiet certainty, rock of Gilbrator-you are the King baby–that he deeply needed and craved so that he could perhaps feel whole and comfortable in his skin.

        I am even going to suggest that perhaps Diana’s vanity was wounded too. Looks. Check. Youth. Check. Pedigree. Check. Style. Check. In terms of being “the desired” tall, slim, blonde English Rose—the others couldn’t compete. Check. Heir & a spare. Double Check. Despite having “so much” going for her, she still couldn’t compete. And to be out-competed by what on the surface looks like a big, sloppy-tittied, crooked teeth similarly educated, older woman could not have been comfortable for her. It’s like the celebrated head-cheerleader losing out to the geeky and awkward looking girl math major.

        I am guessing that there were a lot of undercurrents there.

        Related/unrelated: a good friend of mine and her husband got divorced. His drinking got out of control during the marriage despite her help and support. My friend once said to me “I would have competed with any woman on the street for my husband’s affection. I would have dared any woman to try to take him from me. I would have done whatever it took to keep him. But the one woman I could not compete against was that woman in the brown bottle. She had his love and attention like no other. She won and I lost.”

        For Diana that brown bottle was Camilla.

      • LadySlippers says:

        •Dena•

        Camilla actually didn’t have a lock on Charles’ affections always. That’s a myth. Kanga, for many years, had it.

        BUT your observation about Diana’s vanity can’t be so readily dismissed. And it’s equally likely that’s there’s truth there.

      • wolfpup says:

        If this was happening to me, my “vanity” would be so hurt. It’s so easy to start wondering if it is you: rather, it is all about the character of the betrayer.

        As a woman who suffered physical assaults from husbands, it was hurtful that others, could even wonder if it was my fault. There is so much shame involved. Time took care of it, but still you cannot blame a woman for a man’s bad behavior.

  11. Delta Juliet says:

    While I find it very tragic how his marriage to Diana was, and how it ended, these two clearly love each other very much. They have been in love for DECADES which is more than a lot of us can say. Do I think he treated Diana badly? Absolutely. Should he never be allowed happiness again because of it? Of course not. Time has passed, let them be.

  12. bettyrose says:

    So, I finally read the Diana Chronicles, after the book club discussion, and I could barely put it down (stupid life responsibilities). It seems to be a recurring theme in the book that but for Camilla, Charles & Di might have reconciled. Is that fair? Probably not. The mistress always takes the blame. But still, Di got a raw deal and now she’s gone. Camilla got it all, so why can’t she graciously turn down the fancy titles and just enjoy winning?

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      I honestly think that a decent person would have seen that a marriage can’t work if one of the spouses has such a strong emotional bond with an outsider. Charles was too weak to break off with Camilla and she was too selfish to break off with him. That marriage may have failed anyway, for many reasons, but it never had a chance because of them.

      • LadySlippers says:

        •GoodNames•

        Charles and Camilla broke it off when she was chasing after the love of her life, Andrew. She only ‘went back’ after her two children were born which is very typical in the aristo world. And unlike Diana, Andrew not only knew, but also was 100% with the arrangement.

        I think that’s where you’re greatest concern/issue is — Diana knew but wasn’t okay with it. And Charles completely disregarded her feelings in order to defer and cater to his own. Most people don’t realise that Diana knew AND was okay with Kanga as Charles’ mistress. Not only that, she was presumably okay with his various other mistresses and there were plenty of those. But not Camilla.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Right, that is my problem with it. That she was hurt by, I think, their emotional connection that didn’t leave any room for her, more than their physical relationship.

        I know I need to let it go a little. I reread my comments and I sound a little over-invested. Lol.

      • jess says:

        And Kanga came to a bad end. She reportedly was institutionalized, after Dianna’s death, and she fell out of a secord story window and died very strangely. Some said she was pushed. Oh, Camilla, such extremes to get your evil way.

      • bluhare says:

        You’re not implying Camilla had something to do with her death are you?

      • FLORC says:

        Bluhare
        Just wait until the Queen passes.
        A friend sent me 2 headlines likely to be printed they have sidelined for a tab.
        1 stating Camilla offs the Queen before she can make Kate her successor.
        2 stating Camilla offs the Queen because she’s tired of waiting.

        a third one we came up with as a joke. Queen on her death bed wants to tell world Camilla killed Diana. Camilla offs the Queen then and there.

      • wolfpup says:

        LS, It’s presuming a lot that Diana would have been okay with all of Charles mistresses, based on his relationship with Kanga.

      • LadySlippers says:

        •wolfpup•

        It is.

        But if she objected to any other mistress — why don’t we know about it? It’s not like Diana wasn’t free with her opinions on that subject or anything. 😉 She made them quite well known. Lol. She probably knew about the Canadian mistress as well as others (and the fact the boys probably have a half-brother that’s slightly older than Harry).

        That’s why I can make the presumption I do. I am absolutely aware that I could be wrong.

    • joe spider says:

      Charles was bullied in to getting married once he passed 30, it’s just a pity he didn’t marry Camilla in the first place.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        But he didn’t marry Camilla. He married Diana. And when you marry someone, they deserve your respect and for you to honor your vows and truly try to make the relationship work, with your whole heart and mind. Charles never did that. That’s on him. He’s not a helpless victim here. He chose to cheat emotionally and then physically, from the beginning.

      • A:) old prude says:

        Good name
        I completely agree with you. I’m so toured of excuses made out for what Chuck and Cam pulled, oh they weren’t compatible to begin with, she was to immature, it was an streamed marriage, on and on ABCs on. Chick was a grown ass man who was to weak to stand IP for himself and that’s not an excuse for what he did, also even if their marriage was doomed to begin with we know he cheated on get and left her with 2 kids the moment shit hit the fan so much for better or for worse. What most disgusting is some women claiming Di also created when she dated other men after her gourmand had left her effectively. What was she supposed to do live like a nun while her husband was bedding various woman all over England? She started looking for relationships after get marriage was effectively over all but in name and divorce was not an option so it wasn’t exactly cheating on her part already with Chuck. I’ll suggest you stop replying to tresses posts because some posters will excuse the deplorable behaviour of Chuck and Camilia at any cost no matter what.

      • jess says:

        And Kanga ended up possibly murdered.

      • FLORC says:

        GoodNames
        Here I fully agree with you. Fully!
        Charles should have married Camilla, but he didn’t (and couldn’t?). He chose Diana a 19 year old virgin from a good family.
        She was looking for a way out before their wedding too, but her family was of little help. She was stuck.
        Still, she and Charles did seem genuinely in love for times of their marriage. I mean by all accounts madly in love with eachother for those bouts.
        And he had the idea of marriage as not the words he spoke at the wedding, but how he was entitled to feel as the heir. He can do as he liked and shame on him for doing that. Especially to Diana who was very young and unsure of her position for the 1st year or so.
        And especially when her self harming was her outlet to try and get his attention or to vent her frustration. He seemed less than human to ignore that pain she was in. Mother to his sons.

        That’s where my sympathy ends though.

      • LadySlippers says:

        •Florc•

        At the time of their fling, neither Charles or Camilla was interested in marrying each other.

    • wolfpup says:

      LS, it must be the “one-night-stand” vs. emotional intimacy that you are describing, about what Diana was OK(?) with, or not.

      • LadySlippers says:

        •wolfpup•

        I’m not though. Charles stated that Kanga was the only woman who truly understood him. Kanga and Camilla fought one another and for a very long time — Kanga was the victorious one.

        Check out ‘Charles’ Other Mistress’ on YouTube (it’s narrated by Benedict Cumberbatch too!). You’ll see that Kanga, for years, was Charles’ number one.

        I think the difference between Kanga and Camilla is simple. Kanga ‘knew’ that she needed Diana’s official approval to conduct her affair with Charles. Camilla never cared even though her own husband was aware and approved. There’s a hypocrisy there that’s just not cool. That’s how and why Camilla broke the code, of both women and the aristos. Diana was still Charles’ wife and Camilla effectively undermined both codes and the marriage by doing what she did. That’s why Diana was rightfully angry.

        Make sense?

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Oh, LadySlippers I didn’t see this before I replied above. Totally makes sense.

      • FLORC says:

        LadySlippers
        The moment I heard of that code I became endlessly happy I married a “commoner” and for love.

      • Ronia says:

        Codes? What codes for goodness’ sake??? LOL In all history of aristocracy in all European countries kings and princes have chosen their mistresses and favorites without ANY thought what their wives would think or not! It’s not even necessary to be a king or prince to do so. LS, your comments are just not true. After all, we have tones of memoires to read and know how kings and princes, and aristocratic men in general, chose their mistresses. That’s hilarious. Imagine Henry IV asking Marie de Medicis what she thinks of Gabrielle, for example. LOL Nonsense. Queens, princesses and such married for political and financial reasons. Their marriages were contracts and never included love and fidelity. If it happened, it was rare and an exception. For example, Louis XIII reportedly never cheated on Anne but he also never wanted to sleep with her really and was forced to consumate his marriage, so the story is far more shady than simple fidelity on the side of the king. In any case, the usual situation would describe a queen/princess who swallows whatever is offered to her and, if lucky, find herself an amusement too. Or not and live nearly isolated.

      • wolfpup says:

        LS – I went to view that utube title. I found it full of conjecture and supposition; but there are important facts. Kanga was Diana’s friend, just so she could be closer to Charles, (if we are to believe the narrator), who also says, that Kanga and the Queen were riding companions during this time. If the Queen didn’t know, then maybe Diana didn’t either. Kanga’s family denied the accusation in print after the divorce. They deny it to this day.

        As far as the question of who takes the heat for this sorry state of affairs, we all must point to that very foolish, (fill in the blanks), Charles, who doesn’t have a shred of common sense in him, and a bad character to boot! There’s a need to rewrite history for that. And I see this film as being propaganda along that line.

        There is so much sexism to tap from this one dude! This film just highlights it.

        Kanga was Dale Tyron’s label. Diana wore one of her gowns. She died from spida bifida, and its attendant illnesses.

      • LadySlippers says:

        •Ronia•

        Actually there are codes. That doesn’t mean everyone plays by them — plenty of people — especially men, do what they want, d@mn the repercussions. But that doesn’t invalidate a code. We have laws that determine how fast we can go on a particular street or highway, which doesn’t impact the fact most of us speed on same said street or highway. We knowingly break that ‘code’ all the time.

        I suggest reading ‘To Marry an English Lord’. It’s a book that addresses the various codes of the British aristocracy. ‘Snobs’ by Julian Fellows (he’s a peer — Baron Fellows of West Stafford and an aristo by birth) brings those rules to life quite well. I’d recommend that one too. ‘A Scandalous Life: The Biography of Jane Digby’ is another book that extensively talks about the unwritten rules of the British (and European) aristocracy (as well as Arabian) including the ‘rules’ around infidelity. I’ve also read numerous other books that addresses the unwritten rules of having a mistress or lover. I do know of which I speak.

        Diana’s anger, was justified against Charles conduct, specifically with Camilla. Why? The code was broken. She was very good friends with Kanga, going so far as to wear an outfit designed by Kanga to the Live Aid concert in 1985. Google it and you’ll see the dress Diana is wearing.

      • LadySlippers says:

        •wolfpup•

        The show had more facts than they did errors. I’ve read enough bios on all of them to be able to state that.

        Kanga was Charles’ mistress long before Diana was on the scene. And affairs are well known but never spoken about in that set. HM might have known about Charles’ key mistresses but Diana definitely would have. Just as Charles and both Andrew’s (DoY and Parker Bowles) knew about their wives’ dalliances.

        And FYI, Kanga was Dale’s nickname. That’s why she named her label that.

        •Florc•

        Truth.

        I don’t mind what two consenting and healthy adults want to do with their relationship — that ain’t my business. But it’s not for me. I need respect, fidelity, love, friendship, and trust (among other things) in my marriage.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        I agree with the letter of LadySlipper’s comment here and I agree with the spirit of Ronia’s comment.
        These unwritten rules have been in place within the aristocracy/nobility for centuries. Kings had wives, high born mistresses, servants and tavern wenches. Queens sometimes had lovers from the top to the bottom of society. Sometimes there was an understanding and sometimes there was jealousy and conflict.kanga may or may not have had Diana’s blessing but for me the more interesting question is whether or not Kanga would have backed off had Diana put her foot down. I think she would have. Camilla was like poison ivy that wouldn’t let go, no matter who she was hurting. Besides, Camilla knew full well the battles raging within the Wales’ marriage and she thought nothing of what that was doing to William and Harry and how it was hurting them as innocent children.

      • LadySlippers says:

        •Snark•

        I’m not saying everyone listens to those codes, they don’t, especially powerful men. All I was saying is breaking that code is part of the reason that Diana had issues with Charles and Camilla’s relationship. And as others have pointed out — there were probably other things that bothered her too. That’s all I was trying to say.

      • wolfpup says:

        LS, I disagree with you about Kanga. There is NO hard evidence – none whatsoever, but lots of conjecture. I watched the entire film and read Wikipedia about her. To me, the facts are completely inconclusive. She was welcomed in the Queen’s court. It is true that Kanga was on the scene before Diana, but I seriously doubt that it was okay for a 19 year old girl, to let her husband bop someone else. She found a gift to Camilla from Charles on her honeymoon! I saw the film as just a bunch of salacious gossip. When Kanga fell from the two story building, it was Charles who was accused of foul play, not Diana. The film showed the newspaper headlines stating that (I remember the story as well when it was happening). Kanga’s spina bifida put her in an institution, not the Wales. Amongst her family, and the royal family, there is only denial of an affair, and a demonstable fondness for her, even from the Queen.

        On a hilarious note, the first five minutes of the film describing how Charles was more desirable than Roger Moore, and three other awesome dudes, is so lol amusing to watch. I remember the media stating this about Charles when I was a teenager. I couldn’t understand that one, I thought he was very ugly!

        The film was salacious and tawdry, and therefore, entertaining. And Charles looks like one of the most sexist men on the planet.

        This “code” that is so protected is wrong. This is not the dark ages. How convenient for Charles to believe otherwise – his denial of basic human goodness and integrity is astounding.

  13. sienna says:

    Its my understanding that today she is the Princess of Wales, and the Duchess of Cornwall, since she is married to Prince Charles she gets the feminine side of whatever titles he carries.

    If I am right on this, she will be the Queen Consort regardless of whether she uses that title or something else.

    • LAK says:

      She is The Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothsay (sp?) etc, BUT! The rabid Diana fans would have her head on a plate if she used the Princess of Wales title, so she uses the second title.

      What’s silly about all this is that Diana was also the Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothsay (sp?) etc, BUT! The Diana fans only object to the princess of Wales title.

      Go figure.

      • aquarius64 says:

        Camilla could use the POW title if the queen wills it. The palace knew Camilla using Diana’s title would be a PR nightmare for the The Firm. The next publicly called Princess of Wales will be Duchess Kate, when Charles ascends to the throne and William is invested as Prince of Wales.

      • LadySlippers says:

        •aquarius•

        This was never QEII’s decision to begin with. Camilla made it and everyone respected the reason behind it.

        Camilla, then and now, is legally within her right to be addressed as Princess of Wales. She chooses otherwise.

        I do think it will be awhile before we use the name of Pss of Wales. Even after Charles ascends, William as a ‘reluctant royal’ won’t want to rush to get that investiture. We’ll see him be both Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay for some time. My guess is he’ll wait 2-5 years before getting invested. Strictly a guess on my part though.

      • wolfpup says:

        It is just a name, Princess of Wales, but I believe that the mistress can show a little bit of respect.

        As I recall, it was very difficult for Charles to get permission from his mother to marry Camilla. I’m sure that her title was discussed in committee with the firm before she was even married.

        Geez LS, we are disagreeing a lot today. That’s okay, huh?

    • Algernon says:

      Yeah, she is the feminine version of whatever her husband is. She is technically the Princess of Wales, they just don’t call her that out of respect for Diana (and her popularity), and she will be the queen consort, regardless of whatever they end up calling her. In the British system it all comes to down to what the monarch says you’re called, though. Like Kate is technically Princess William of Wales, but it’s tradition for younger sons in the BRF to use a title, so they became the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. I like to imagine the Queen in her study with this long list of fancy titles, throwing a dart to decide who gets called what.

      Personally I’ve always felt that she will be Queen Camilla. There’s just no way she and Charles went through all this for her to not get the big brass ring at the end.

  14. murphy says:

    Camilla is a good person and a hard worker. She deserves the title she is legally entitled to.

  15. BReed says:

    I won’t speculate on the title Camilla might have. Anything can happen.

    • LadySlippers says:

      •BReed•

      It’s not speculation. It’s British law that was correctly quoted and unless a law is passed, Camilla will be Her Majesty Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom of a Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

      A law has to be passed in the UK *and* the Commonwealth nations in order for her to be anything else other than Queen when Charles ascends.

      • wolfpup says:

        If so, LS, it was very sneaky for the palace to suggest that Camilla’s ascension was EVER an issue, up for debate. If this is the case, they definitely play the long game, don’t they?

      • LadySlippers says:

        •wolfpup•

        It was Charles’ PR team that proposed it. And yes, the long game indeed because if popular opinion stayed anti-Camilla they would have introduced said bill they needed.

        However, Camilla really isn’t a bad person (but has done some bad things) and the public’s opinion is slowly changing. Charles’ “wait” is honestly helping him. A lot. See Edward VII for comparison.

      • wolfpup says:

        Camilla didn’t just “slip”. She did a bad thing for a very long time. I don’t respect her.

        Yet I also let it go – she’s not important to me. And I do hope that she is currently enjoying her life. I know that the paps are always blamed, but Diana would still be here if not for her. Diana fought her only because she wanted Charles’s love.

        Oh, one interesting tidbit… When Charles’ uncle Mountbatten passed, guess who was there to comfort him? Kanga. It was at this point that Charles whined that Kanga understood him best. What a loser!

      • Lady D says:

        I’m going to be 54 this summer. Elizabeth has been queen my whole life. Saying Queen Camilla sounds so strange.

  16. A:) old prude says:

    People in England still cant stand her or are used to her, they merely tolerate her like rest of the family because of Queen. Proof see how Camilla was booed at royal wedding (and that is the most royalist crowd) or at jubilee parade, all the polls in UK shows well over 50% really dislike her, most of these polls are 60% to 75%. The strong dislike towards her is the reason this debate was started in the first place when pro monarchy politicians found out that Charles is planning on going back on his weirds and intends to make her Queen, which he promised he won’t do at the time of wedding and the reason I dislike him because he is spoiled , entitled man who had lied to his public time and tone again to get what he wants. The republic sentiment will be very high Asher Queen and Charles pushing Queen Camilla won’t do him and the monarchy any favours and politicians know that very well but Chuck is too entitled to see this.

    • LadySlippers says:

      •Angelic•

      Polls can be manipulated so I’m not really going to comment on that portion.

      However, Charles’ lying to the public is not cool in any shape or form. Because, no matter what, it looks likes he’s conned people to get what he wants. That’s straight up manipulation.

      I’m a big believer in owning your sh!t and he’s not. I’m a straight talker and prefer others to do it as well. Sad thing is, most people prefer to be told what they want to hear — which is why politicians lie through their teeth at election time. Or we vote out people that tell us the truth. Also not cool.

    • Ronia says:

      Yep. And in many aristocratic circles interested more or less in the BRF Camilla is persona non grata. Full stop.

      P.S. Polls are true. MIne own impression from my trips to UK are the same and I have relatives there which makes the royal gossip mandatory. :) ))

      • LadySlippers says:

        •Ronia•

        Polls are just statistics and you can make both say whatever you want them to. That’s why neither are terribly reliable unless you are aware of the method gathering techniques used.

        It’s common in teaching research methods in college/university to demonstrate how to slant questions to get a desired outcome. It’s pretty common knowledge in the research world which is why you now are required to supply your peers the methods in which you obtained your results. Including questions.

        If I recall correctly, either •Snark• or her husband is well versed in research. She might be able to further illuminate this.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        LadySlippers is correct here. Well designed studies employ several techniques to minimize the risk of creating biases,. In addition, failsafe devices are also used to identify any ambiguous collection methods as well as a strong responsibility on the part of the researcher to vet his/her own work and explain any and all factors that could have influenced the outcomes.
        Most popular or opinion type polls or surveys don’t employ this level of protocol or methodology when setting up a research model. This means the results should be taken with a grain of salt.

      • Flower says:

        This very evening I had a pollster ring for my opinion on a political question, it was a relatively simple yes or no/ agree or don’t agree questionnaire but there must have been a dozen questions about the same thing, all worded slightly differently and actually guiding you to into giving the answers they wanted to hear. So statistics can be used to skew true public opinion simply by the wording of a question.

        If you take note next time you are asked to do a phone survey most of them simply want you to answer a specific set of question and are not particularly interested in what you personally have to say on the matter.

  17. Lex says:

    Is she not a bit old to still be called a Princess? ?!??!?

  18. MinnFinn says:

    Here is a statistical look at the question of Camilla’s title when Charles becomes King. The issue may boil down to who is more likely to live another 10 years – Camilla or QEII? (Barring a tragic accident, Charles living another 10 years is highly probable.)

    Camilla is now 66 but she may predecease QEII which means the issue of her title when Charles is king goes away. By my estimate, Camilla will live to be about 76. (The US Social Security longevity calculator estimates Camilla’s lifespan at 86.8 but that does not factor in family history or lifestyle. So subtract 10 years for her being a long-term smoker.) (And btw, I do not wish Camilla premature death.)

    http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/putting-a-number-to-smokings-toll/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

  19. Ellen says:

    “I am so surprised that Charles wants Camilla to be crowned queen and will do everything he can to see that happen” — wrote no royal watcher, ever.

    “Princess Consort” was a place-holding maneuver while they waited for Diana’s memory to fade. Princess of Wales was a title that the current generation absolutely equated with Diana. Queen is not. I am sure that Camilla will be crowned Queen.

    (Actually, I’ll be interested to see the order of the Coronation service no matter what they do with Camilla. Times have changed a great deal since 1953 and I have real questions about which parts of the service Charles tries to alter.)

  20. rianic says:

    Did they not want to call her Queen because she was divorced? Letizia is divorced, and she will be Queen later this year.

    Side note – it’s sort of sad that all these royals not much older than Charles are stepping down for their children, when Charles has never gotten to be King.

    • LAK says:

      The public oppose her Queenship because of Diana. Ie Diana was done wrong and she should have been Queen. And even though Diana is long dead, Camilla doesn’t deserve to be Queen.

      As the monarchy lives by the will of the people, Charles has soft peddled the issue because he wishes Camilla to be Queen consort.

      The sad thing is that by law, Camilla will be Queen, but if the public mood is still overwhelmingly negative, she won’t.

    • LadySlippers says:

      •rianic•

      No, it’s because both Charles and Camilla committed adultery with each other and Camilla was effectively named as ‘the other woman’ and contributed to the breakdown of Charles and Diana’s marriage. That’s the issue.

      • Tolva says:

        I love Diana but it’s interesting how people say Charles was an adulterer and somehow Diana wasn’t. Diana committed adultery too, with James Hewitt.

      • LadySlippers says:

        •Tolva•

        Charles committed adultery with other women — that’s not the issue. Nor is Diana’s adultery.

        The issue is that Charles and Camilla did something detrimental to Charles and Diana’s marriage. Something their other relationships outside their marriage did not.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        LS
        Great and often overlooked point.

      • Tolva says:

        Diana went out of her marriage w James Hewitt, that’s Adultery !
        Diana committed Adultery w James Hewitt and another man she had an affair with. Diana was instrumental in the break up of a marriage too. She was named in divorce court papers by a wife, its a fact that can be easily researched, just look at old news stories. Diana’s image was golden so a lot of the press didn’t widely report the story but it was still covered by some and it’s a fact. I’m just saying. I love Diana but she also had a hand in breaking apart a lesser known marriage, unknown to the general public.
        Diana committed adultery too as did Charles, what’s the difference ? I don’t get why Diana’s Adultery with James Hewitt and the married man whose wife names her in divorce documents is somehow better than Charles and Camilla committing Adultery ?
        Diana is my favorite royal person but I know she also had affairs and to excuse these affairs because we like her or she was beloved is hypocrisy, just as it would be to excuse Charles and Camilla’s affair or affairs.

  21. AryaMartell says:

    It would not surprise me to find that many of the commonwealth nations, specifically Canada and Australia, pack up their bags and leave if Charles is king. I have said this to many people but the smartest thing Charles can do is abdicate in favour of William but in reality I don’t think that will do a ton of good either. There’s no longer a need for a monarchy and tax dollars should not be spent keeping these people around as heads of government anymore.

    • AM says:

      I do think many countries will leave after the Queen passes, but that is less because of the next King and more a reflection on the current Queen that they have stayed so long.

    • Tolva says:

      The smartest thing Charles could do is to be King and serve his time, because once he abdicates,what’s to stop William, who has said he would NOT take the position if his father abdicated.
      Charles ,ay not be the most popular but he’s not viewed as weak. William is viewed as weak and a reluctant heir , the Republicans would push him over with a feather. I just don’t think William knows how to fight them off, whereas Charles does and will. You can bet the republicans do not like William either, they want the Monarchy gone, period, so his time won’t be a picnic either. I like William but I think he’s very weak.

  22. Her Indoors says:

    No way will she be Queen anything.
    After Brenda pops her clogs, replacing her with Camilla?
    The people will never have it. And if the monarchy really wants to survive, they would be mad to rattle that cage.

  23. Pandora says:

    Why the hell not, she could easily boost ER2′s entire wardrobe and nobody would even notice.

  24. DaphneS says:

    Camilla and Charles make me sick. I think it’s stupid that Cam doesn’t use the Princess of Wales title “out of respect for Diana”. Bah! She has no respect for Diana and never did.

    Having said that, I really wish that Charles had married Camilla in the first place. They obviously belong together, and if they’d been together all along, I’d like them a lot. But with the way they treated Diana (who had major faults herself, I know), I just can’t.

    And I’ve believed since they married that she’ll be “Queen Camilla” should Charles become King. This “Princess Consort” business is smoke and mirrors.

  25. HoustonGrl says:

    I’ve seen old pictures of Camilla and Charles. It seems like they’ve always loved each other. Why didn’t he marry her in the first place instead of dragging Diana through the mud? I guess they were young and stupid. That said, I don’t have anything against Camilla, she seems personable and suitable for her role. Like most children of divorce, I’m sure William and Harry just want their father to be happy. Being a single parent can be very lonely.

  26. raindrop says:

    Wasted speculation. Everyone knows that Queen Elizabeth will live forever, replacing failing organs and limbs with bionic parts until she becomes RoboQueen.

  27. Tolva says:

    Camilla if she is living and married to Charles when the Queen dies, will become Queen Consort, it doesn’t really matter what they may say, Camilla will be Queen Consort as the Kings wife, period.

  28. weirswalker says:

    She has always needed veneers…her teeth are horrible

  29. CK says:

    I think she should be Queen or Princess. Honestly, simply because she’s married to the prince. Idc about what happened between them and Diana and absent public furor, she would have been princess already. The marriage was dissolved before her death so the titles shouldn’t be claimed by one person or another.

    • Deeana says:

      Most women, even if not beautiful, look better when they smile. Not Camilla, however……..
      and actually, I think she did have some work done on her teeth prior to their marriage. Because they used to be even worse!

    • Tolva says:

      Camilla is already HRH The Princess of Wales, she s just not using the title. It would stir up a hornets nest if she did.
      I think the Queen consort thing will happen regardless, Camilla as Charles wife will be Queen consort. I’m still not sure she’ll be around that long though. Doesn’t she smoke like a chimney?

  30. Jade says:

    I have a feeling Camilla doesn’t care what she’s called. Diana wasn’t perfect and I believe Charles and her, especially Charles, did hurt Diana. The funny thing is Charles did not have to marry Camilla at all, especially if he so desired to be King. He could have continued with random side pieces (Camilla included) or marry an appropriate aristocrat so that he can appear to have the perfect family unit a Christian King should have when he ascends. But he did not. Marrying Camilla was a perfect pr disaster. He still did anyway. Why? That’s why I think they truly love each other and for that, just let them be. It doesn’t invalidate Diana’s hurt or endorse their affair at that time. It just means, move on.

    Honestly, I wouldn’t want the POW title if I am her. Just let me continue wearing gorgeous tiaras.

  31. mandalynca says:

    I still foresee problems with Charles being crowned King. He will become Head of the Church of England and his marriage to Camilla goes against church guidelines. One of the reasons is that the remarriage of a divorcee – Camilla in this case as her ex is still alive – should not seem to condone previous adultery. Their remarriage clearly does that.