Camilla will be declared Charles’ Queen Consort the day after the Queen passes

Queen visit Poundsbury

The Guardian published a fascinating, morbid and slightly shocking “long read” this week. The article is quite simply about “What Happens When Queen Elizabeth Dies” As in, what comes next in the minutes, hours, days and weeks after the Queen kicks the royal bucket, as it were. You can and should read the whole piece here. It includes details about nearly everything, from the name of her hyper-planned funeral arrangements (London Bridge), to the protocol for who gets informed of her death first, to how the gongs of Big Ben will be muffled, to what the BBC is planning for the actual death announcement and so much more. The whole piece is curious and crazy, but there are some interesting pieces of gossip about how Prince Charles – or King Charles – will spend his first moments as king. First of all, his siblings must all kiss his hand and, like, swear their allegiance to him. And yes, Camilla will be declared Queen Consort within 24 hours, pretty much. Here are some details about King Charles which I found fascinating:

When the Queen’s body is brought to Buckingham Palace: In the corridors, staff employed by the Queen for more than 50 years will pass, following procedures they know by heart. “Your professionalism takes over because there is a job to be done,” said one veteran of royal funerals. There will be no time for sadness, or to worry about what happens next. Charles will bring in many of his own staff when he accedes. “Bear in mind,” the courtier said, “everybody who works in the palace is actually on borrowed time.”

Charles will have to sign off on every detail of his mother’s funeral: In theory, everything is settled. But in the hours after the Queen has gone, there will be details that only Charles can decide. “Everything has to be signed off by the Duke of Norfolk and the King,” one official told me. The Prince of Wales has waited longer to assume the British throne than any heir, and the world will now swirl around him at a new and uncrossable distance… In recent years, much of the work on London Bridge has focused on the precise choreography of Charles’s accession. “There are really two things happening,” as one of his advisers told me. “There is the demise of a sovereign and then there is the making of a king.” Charles is scheduled to make his first address as head of state on the evening of his mother’s death.

Parliament will swear an allegiance to King Charles ASAP: Parliament will gather. If possible, both houses will sit within hours of the monarch’s death. In 1952, the Commons convened for two minutes before noon. “We cannot at this moment do more than record a spontaneous expression of our grief,” said Churchill, who was prime minister. The house met again in the evening, when MPs began swearing the oath of allegiance to the new sovereign. Messages rained in from parliaments and presidents. The US House of Representatives adjourned. Ethiopia announced two weeks of mourning. In the House of Lords, the two thrones will be replaced by a single chair and a cushion bearing the golden outline of a crown.

The day after the Queen’s death: The flags will go back up, and at 11am, Charles will be proclaimed king. The Accession Council, which convenes in the red-carpeted Entrée Room of St James’s Palace, long predates parliament. The meeting, of the “Lords Spiritual and Temporal of this Realm”, derives from the Witan, the Anglo-Saxon feudal assembly of more than a thousand years ago. In theory, all 670 current members of the Privy Council, from Jeremy Corbyn to Ezekiel Alebua, the former prime minister of the Solomon Islands, are invited – but there is space for only 150 or so. The clerk, a senior civil servant named Richard Tilbrook, will read out the formal wording, “Whereas it has pleased Almighty God to call to His Mercy our late Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second of Blessed and Glorious memory…” and Charles will carry out the first official duties of his reign, swearing to protect the Church in Scotland, and speaking of the heavy burden that is now his.

Charles has to go on tour immediately: The same rituals will take place, but this time around the new king will also go out to meet his people. From his proclamation at St James’s, Charles will immediately tour the country, visiting Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff to attend services of remembrance for his mother and to meet the leaders of the devolved governments. There will also be civic receptions, for teachers, doctors and other ordinary folk, which are intended to reflect the altered spirit of his reign. “From day one, it is about the people rather than just the leaders being part of this new monarchy,” said one of his advisers, who described the plans for Charles’s progress as: “Lots of not being in a car, but actually walking around.” In the capital, the pageantry of royal death and accession will be archaic and bewildering. But from another city each day, there will be images of the new king mourning alongside his subjects, assuming his almighty, lonely role in the public imagination. “It is see and be seen,” the adviser said.

Queen Camilla is happening: The wave of feeling will help to swamp the awkward facts of the succession. The rehabilitation of Camilla as the Duchess of Cornwall has been a quiet success for the monarchy, but her accession as queen will test how far that has come. Since she married Charles in 2005, Camilla has been officially known as Princess Consort, a formulation that has no historical or legal meaning. (“It’s bulls–t,” one former courtier told me, describing it as “a sop to Diana”.) The fiction will end when Elizabeth II dies. Under common law, Camilla will become queen — the title always given to the wives of kings. There is no alternative. “She is queen whatever she is called,” as one scholar put it. “If she is called Princess Consort there is an implication that she is not quite up to it. It’s a problem.” There are plans to clarify this situation before the Queen dies, but King Charles is currently expected to introduce Queen Camilla at his Accession Council on [the day after Elizabeth II’s death]. Confirmation of her title will form part of the first tumultuous 24 hours.

[From The Guardian]

I came out of this piece feeling slightly sorry for Prince Charles. Like, for years and years he’s waited for the “big job,” but after her married Camilla, I got the feeling that he sort of made his peace with the fact that he would likely be quite old when he ascends to the throne, which is why he set about doing the most he could with the Prince of Wales title. But all of this crap is going to fall on his shoulders the second his mum dies and… I worry. I shouldn’t worry, though. I imagine it actually will go smoothly with King Charles in Charge. *gong*

Queen Cyber Security

The Queen's Baton Relay at Buckingham Palace

Photos courtesy of WENN.

Related stories

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

156 Responses to “Camilla will be declared Charles’ Queen Consort the day after the Queen passes”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. sarri says:

    Charles will be a good king but his son won’t.

    • Miss Melissa says:

      I agree completely.

    • xpresson says:

      Funny, once upon a time I remember when Charles was considered not fit to be a King ( that time was around the tampon Scandal ) and William was wanted as next king bypassing Charles. People back in the day were incensed ! How a few years change things. I wonder if William will mature into a more responsible royal as he grows older?

      • Prairiegirl says:

        Let’s hope so!

      • Achoo! says:

        He will never change, he is 34years old and set in his ways, Royal duty will always be a chore to him and an excuse for a whinge fest, but he will stay just to get his hands on the Duchy of Cornwall millions , just on £20million a year. He will become more self entitled and obnoxious when he controls all that money , because money doesn’t change you it just magnifies what you are.

  2. Goats on the Roof says:

    That makes me feel a bit sorry for Charles. “No mourning time for you, there’s pageantry to be had!”

    • original kay says:

      that’s what I was thinking too

      • nem says:

        that s really distasteful. it ‘s a shame there is no mourning transition for successors,as they re losing their nearest family members

    • Red32 says:

      There is a Netflix miniseries about Queen Elizabeth’s early life, and the same thing happened to her when King George died. She was travelling when he died, and before she even got home to see his body, she was being asked to choose her official name and Prince Philip was instructed to walk behind her.

  3. Becky says:

    I read this article yesterday and it’s worth the read if you’re interested.

    Turns out most of the pageantry goes back to Edward VII, though the traditions were most likely 100′s of yrs old they’d fallen by the wayside, he revived them.

  4. Jillian says:

    I have a feeling Queen Elizabeth is going to out live us all

  5. Clare says:

    The idea of Queen Camilla makes my skin crawl. I know many people like her now, but she still always strikes me as a bit of a Marie-Antoinette, doesn’t really give a shit about the plebs, figure.

    • Mara says:

      Really there’s never been much of a hint about extravagant spending. She seems quite harmless as far as entitled aristocrats go.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Her work around osteoporosis (family connection), rescue dogs (she has rescue dogs herself), and the Wash Kits for rape survivors? There’s good work there.

    • Ankhel says:

      She’s quite hardworking, doesn’t mind taking on less glamorous charities, and seems to be a pretty cheerful person. I think the Brits could do worse.

    • Cee says:

      I think you’ve got the Duchess of Cornwall and Duchess of Cambridge confused.

    • spidey says:

      @ Clare. Actually, I think she is a lot more down to earth than many people, and certainly puts more effort into the job than PW.

    • Hejhej says:

      I think that’s quite unfair to both Camilla and to Marie-Antoinette.
      At least I’m very sure Camilla is quite down to earth and also very aware of how many people look at her.

      • Erinn says:

        This – lol. Marie Antoinette was in many ways a victim of propaganda and false quote attributions.

    • cindyp says:

      Why do you say that? From what I’ve read she’s very down to earth & pleasant.

    • HappyMom says:

      Based on what? I was a huge Diana fan, and Charles cheating on her was awful-but Camilla seems hard working and down to earth. I don’t see anything wrong with her other than she was “the other woman.”

      • Chetta B. says:

        The other woman, a shameless adulteress who took issue with Diana’s confrontation of her over her affair with Charles. She reportedly said something like, “You’ve got a royal title and two beautiful children. What more do you want.” Diana said, “I want my husband.” Sorry, a tacky interloper who cheated on her husband for years and had no respect another woman’s marriage, good works or not. I believe she is what drove Diana to have an affair.

      • HappyMom says:

        @ChettaB–Charles and Diana had a terrible marriage. But from all accounts, Diana was emotionally stunted and had serious issues. They were both unfaithful-it takes 2 people to make a relationship work. I don’t see why Camilla can’t be Queen Consort.

      • NatalieS says:

        She was a grown woman who disrespected the marriage of a 19 year old kid. Both Charles and Camilla have permanent marks on their character for that. I’m now around the age Charles was when he married and I can not imagine doing something like that. And he emotionally cheated on Diana from day one with those inappropriate Fred and Gladys cufflinks from Camilla.

        Diana herself went on to be disrespectful to other marriages, yes, but that does not cancel out what happened to her when she was still a teenager.

        I have no opinion on whether Camilla should be Queen consort. I think the whole concept of titles and royalty is ridiculous.

      • Tigerlily says:

        Chettab and Natalie: Diana knew the score when she married Charles. Even in their engagement interview he basically said he didn’t love Diana (“Whatever love is”). It was a huge charade that they were a love match. Diana grew up in aristocratic circles and if she didn’t know that mistresses were part of royal marriages then she was even stupider than anyone realized.

        She had mental health issues and the royal family should have given her a premarital psychiatric exam rather than the supposed gynecology exam to prove virginity and fertility.

      • NatalieS says:

        I think most teenagers tend to think they’ll be the exception to the rule and don’t have the life experience to see through other people. A 33 year old man married a teenager because no woman his own age wanted to put up with him including Camilla.

        Charles gaslighted Diana about what was going on and had the nerve to be angry with her when she confronted Camilla. The demented levels of selfishness and shamelessness is shocking. What he did to her is emotional abuse. Diana was a kid from a family with physical and emotional abuse issues and with addiction issues. She was vulnerable to being drawn to recreations of what she had experienced. And she went straight into a marriage where she was used by Charles and Camilla.

      • Melanie says:

        The Diana fans seemed to forget, Diana had affairs with a couple of married men. But lets blamed Prince Charles and Camilla. I like Camila, she seems down to earth.

      • Tigerlily says:

        NatalieS: As I said before Diana grew up in the aristocracy, she was familiar with the Royal Family, her grandmother was a close friend of the late Queen Mother.

        For sure she was 19 but she was ambitious and a trust fund kid who never had to work a day in her life. She wanted the title and Charles and the attention that went with it all.

        Her older sister Sarah dated Charles back in the day and I am quite sure she explained a few things to Diana before she accepted a ring. And possibly Diana thought she would be “different”. She wasn’t. What Camilla and Charles did was not kind but Diana did more of the same so I believe she was unhinged. Ask Will Carling’s wife about it.

      • NatalieS says:

        @Tigerlily, Not all royals and aristocrats cheat on their spouses. Charles’ own grandparents are one example. The idea that all aristocrats resign themselves to their spouses gaslighting them about their “friendships” isn’t plausible. Charles flat out lied about the nature of his relationship with Camilla and humiliated and isolated a very young Diana by using the homes of his friends’, people she would see and socialize with, as meeting places for his affair.

        Diana worked before and after her marriage. Her work ethic has never been in question and she didn’t need Charles as her way to a financially comfortable marriage. And of course she wanted Charles; he was her husband.

        In terms of knowing things before heading to marriage, it always surprises me how much Diana was apparently was supposed to know when Charles as the much older partner didn’t seem to care that it’s a terrible idea to marry someone he had barely spent time with, with whom he had very little in common, and who grown up having to cope with the dysfunction in her parents lives which he would have know about.

        Why was the onus on 19 year old Diana to understand her husband was selfish and dysfunctional and not on 33 year old Charles to not be that way. To behave like a decent, respectful person? He couldn’t even be respectful about her eating disorder. What he did was more than unkind. An emotionally healthy person does not use other people like that.

        I touched on earlier that yes, Diana also disrespected other peoples’ marriages and she was wrong. Diana was not a perfect victim but she doesn’t need to be. It doesn’t cancel out what Charles and Camilla did.

    • Vox says:

      Again with the vilification of Marie Antoinette, geez.

      It grosses me out that a monarch can have a consort who he cheated with throughout his marriage to his childrens’ mother, but Camilla certainly does work hard and I can’t fault her for that even if I can fault her for her Diana years conduct.

  6. Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

    I have no problems with Cams being Queen Consort – she would be very good in the role. Sadly Chuck will have to wait at least another 10-15 years, thou i can see him eventually becoming King in all but name. I think he would be a good King, he’s mellowed in his old age and seems more relaxed.

    Whether William becomes King remains to be seen.

    • Sixer says:

      I think she’ll do a good job (insofar as there should even be such a job) too.

      • notasugarhere says:

        She comes from a privileged background, but appears much more approachable and fun than he is. He tries hard to be funny, but people actually get her jokes. It helps.

      • Tigerlily says:

        Agree Sixer. As a Canadian I am flabbergasted that people get jobs(for life no less), titles, money, estates just because an accident of birth.

        And seriously, if DNA tests were done there would be some surprises. Eg: When Richard III’s bones were discovered and his DNA tested against some aristocrats, some stuff didn’t match up. Scientists figured it was more likely the “problem” was in the aristo line as back in medieval days it was tougher (though not impossible) for royal women to cheat.

        It’s an outdated system and there should be no titles etc

  7. Dissa says:

    I imagine many will opt out as commonwealth under Charles’ rule. He has an agenda on organic farming and the environment. It sounds good, until he starts interfering and I expect he’ll be more involved in government as well.

    With Brexit and Trump in charge of the US and Russia quietly making huge power moves, I see trouble ahead.

    I think Wills knows the end of the Monarchy is coming and that’s why he doesn’t represent it as well as Harry. I can see him opting out as well.

    • Alexandria says:

      I think Charles expects that too. Nonetheless, he seems the type to continue his duties until he is not needed. As for Camilla, I’m not too invested into their previous affair so call her whatever. As long as she makes Charles happy and works, so be it.

    • Megan says:

      I don’t think William has a clue about the fragility of the monarchy. He assumes it is untouchable so he takes advantage of it.

      • Bee says:

        The whole monarchy thing is probably just a huge pain in his ass, apart from the money and vacations, of course.

      • Tina says:

        I honestly don’t think William cares either way. He’ll take the perks, but damned if he’ll do the work. If they get rid of the monarchy, they’ll have to pay him off and he’ll have the life of a landed aristocrat like all his mates. For him, there is no incentive to do anything other than what he is doing.

    • spidey says:

      Charles will have to step back and be more neutral when he becomes King.

      • Vox says:

        Right, and he doesn’t actually really have the power to force his pro-environment agenda on any country in the commonwealth (although I’d certainly like some of his enthusiasm for the environment here in Aus). Maybe he’ll be a great monarch who makes people care about the environment when they see his passion for it? I know he pleasantly surprised me with how sincere he was about his love of the environment and it made me actually quite like him for the first time.

  8. Fallon says:

    The piece was such a fascinating (and sad) read. The Queen is such an institution to the world.

  9. lower-case deb says:

    why is Philip never King Consort though? are they afraid that he will usurp the throne? i mean the Consort in the title does mean that he’s not the monarch anyway. Elizabeth is Queen Regnant, the one with the R behind her initial on postboxes not him.

    all the other Queens have similar predicaments too.

    will be interesting what the future queens will do, will they follow tradition of making the husbands Princes or create new tradition? are they even allowed to?

    • Clare says:

      Given that Queen Victoria never made Albert ‘King Consort’ would suggest that is it not done? I don’t know the legality behind it, but it certainlt doesn’t appear to be the done thing? I think Queen Anne’s husband was only made a Duke, not a even a Prince on the Realm. (He remained, however, Prince of Denmark, I think)

    • Megan says:

      Philip isn’t British, nor was Albert. You can’t be King or Queen Consort if you are not British.

      • lower-case deb says:

        so is it because of citizenship prior to marriage? i guess it’s why it’s the same with the three Queen Regnants of the Netherlands? they all married German nobles. and Margrethe queen of Denmark married a French man.

        i wonder if Victoria of Sweden will be allowed to call her husband King Consort? he’s a Swedish guy. will be nice :D

      • LAK says:

        Citizenship isn’t the issue, though it can be used as the excuse.

        Parliament decides. Victoria fought like hell to have them recognise Albert, but they refused and she had to settle for Prince Consort which she thought was mealy mouthed.

        Ultimately, in the creation of titles, Male outranks Female. Always. Albert named King would outrank Queen. That is something we’ve never been able to reconcile because Queen Consort doesn’t outrank King, and remains below him.

      • spidey says:

        Well a German George managed it!

      • Hejhej says:

        Henrik in Denmark has spend a LOT of time pouting and outright complaining about not being given the King titel. IMO it just highlights how outdated monarchies are.

      • james says:

        wrong place

    • COSquared says:

      The misogynist idea is that a King ALWAYS outranks a Queen. Making Phillip King Consort would be viewed as him outranking her.

      • notasugarhere says:

        A politician proposed changing that, at the same time discussions were had around removing male-first inheritance for the children of W&K. He proposed King and Princess Consort, or Queen and Prince Consort. He was soundly shot down, when it seemed like a good idea to me. It was also suggested in The Netherlands, but popular opinion wanted Maxima to be Queen not Princess Consort.

      • Ankhel says:

        There’s been at least a couple of exeptions to this “rule” in British history. Philip II of Spain and William III were both foreigners who became kings of England through marriage to English princesses. Princesses who later inherited the English throne.

        The reason those kings were given this honour is probably because of their original rank. William was the Prince of Orange, which meant he was head of the Netherlands, and his mother was an English Princess Royal. Philip was King of Naples when he married Bloody Mary, and more importantly, first in line to the Spanish throne. Prince Consorts like Albert and “our” Philip were younger sons from less imposing royal families.

        So, with English reigning queens, it seems their husbands can become kings – if parliament allows it. And that only happens if the politicians finds the husband sufficiently impressive. The Queen’s opinion doesn’t seem to weigh much.

      • lower-case deb says:

        editted:
        what i wanted to ask was actually answered by both @ankhel and @lak. lol so i better take my poorly worded question one just in case someone comes across my question and lose a few wills in the process :)

        thank you ladies! i really love CB because i learn stuff every day!

      • LAK says:

        Ankhel: the marriage contract of Philip II and Mary 1 granted Kingship as co-ruler only for the duration of the marriage. End of marriage (for any reason) = no more King.

        As a result, Philip stopped being King when Mary 1 died.

        In William’s case, his Kingship was a usurpation disguised as a glorious revolution and the marriage was a convenient fact promoted to cover this foreign invasion.

      • Becky says:

        Lak, I’m sure you know William III’s accession coincided with the Bill Of Rights (1689), which limited the power of the monarchy and transferred it to Parliament.

      • Ankhel says:

        @LAK

        William and his wife Mary ultimately became coregents, King and Queen, because that’s what Parliament voted for. Regardless of the fate of their predecessor, Mary’s ousted father.

        Philip was only king for the brief years Mary lived on. Yes? He was king, and coregent, nonetheless. Parliament allowed it by passing a special law.

      • LAK says:

        Becky: Yes, but that was AFTER the invasion and usurpation.

        A bunch of British nobles got together and secretly plotted a coup against James 2. They wrote secret letters to William inviting him to invade England, but do it in a way that it didn’t look like an invasion. They advised him on how to enter England, how to present himself etc.

        William duly arrived with over 14,000 troops, and marched to London. Presented himself as merely the saviour of England from the Tyranny of James 2 and his catholic ways. James on his part bottled his response ( had a nose bleed which he saw as a bad sign and fled the proposed battlefield) and fled to France.

        William was invited to become ruler with Mary, BUT the english parliamenterians had learnt the lesson of Charles 1 and James 2, plus the example of the dutch ruling system where a King was closer to a steward than a ruler in the absolute sense. They therefore presented him with the bill of rights as part of the conditions of gaining the British throne because they didn’t want to be beholden to a King (monarch) again.

        A usurpation in all, but name, and not a single shot fired.

        With time, it’s been PR-ed some more to obscure the facts and to present William in favourable light. Emphasis on the good points eg the bill of rights and hide the bad points eg the usurpation and invasion.

        Btw, William accepted because he needed money and troops and a strategic set of lands in his fight against Louise 14. It was win win for him.

    • QueenB says:

      Well its not a really new or progressive institution, is it? I cant get worked up about that.

    • EOA says:

      Kings always outrank Queens (not saying I like it but that’s just the way it is). So since Elizabeth is the sovereign, Phillip can’t outrank her. Thus he is the Prince Consort.

    • Cee says:

      Because KING outranks QUEEN every time. That’s why Queen Regnants only have Prince Consorts.

    • JE says:

      I just found this out. Philip can’t be King Consort because because the title King always outranks the title of Queen. Camillla can be Queen Consort because it’s a lesser title.

  10. Nacho_friend says:

    *gong*

  11. Katydid20 says:

    Could you imagine Will and Kate in Charles’ shoes? They’d be done at “immediate tour around the country.”

  12. QueenB says:

    Implying the Queen will die before Charles.

    • nem says:

      people always forget the longevity of the windsors women and wifes.they usually die as widows.
      and sometimes carry funerals for their own offspring

  13. COSquared says:

    Camilla will be Queen Consort – it doesn’t matter what Diana sugars have to say because it really isn’t about their feelings. I think Charles will be a good ruler, nobody has put this much effort into the POW position as he has done.

    • notasugarhere says:

      He has put loads of effort into in, and he did it long before he married Camilla. Prince’s Trust was started at age 28 and he hasn’t slowed down since. Many of his ideas of organic farming and sustainability actually started with Prince Philip and his management of Balmoral and Sandringham, which tends to be forgotten.

  14. Monsi says:

    I think Charles will do a decent job… Camilla as Queen though… Ugh

    • Lady D says:

      She’s decent, kind, hard-working, intelligent and empathetic. Far, far better choice of ruler.

      • Vox says:

        Wouldn’t really call someone who openly conducts affairs with (allegedly multiple) married men in front of their wives’ noses/her husband’s nose ‘decent’ ‘kind’ or ‘empathetic’.

        I definitely agree that she’s hard-working and intelligent and seems to be a lot of fun. I enjoy her love of horses. She’s more comfortable in the stables than at a palace but she always looks impeccable when she’s on duty.

  15. Talie says:

    If anything happens to the Queen and then Scotland votes to leave, that will fall on Charles. It’s unfair, but his reign will be marked by the U.K. shrinking even more…even though it had been on the decline for years.

    And even though Camilla is rehabbed for the most part…Queen Camilla will be hard pill for most to swallow. I doubt it will go down like that. It doesn’t matter how tone deaf anonymous courtiers are to the outside world. They’ve clearly learned nothing from Diana’s death…amazing.

    • Citresse says:

      The courtiers may not have learned from Diana’s death. Her sons are aware of the fact she’s largely been airbrushed from history. I think it’s one of the reasons they want the statue of her at KP. And it may help to explain why William chose to party at Verbier ie – it was a dig at HM and others. Immature and terribly damaging to the Monarchy. William may also feel resentful HM favours Harry.

      • Shirleygail says:

        Her Majesty favours Harry??!!?? Oh, my. Expand please. I have not ever come across this theory before. She does? How do we know this?

  16. Tan says:

    What happens if the Parliament refuse to swear allegiance to the king?
    Will rexit begin officially then?
    The family should really stop mooching off the common people

    • LAK says:

      If we go by history, civil war. See Charles 1 and his issues with Parliamenterians, particularly Oliver cromwell.

      The question is what sort of earthquake it would cause. Thank goodness we won’t descend into outright civil war as they did before.

  17. Maria says:

    Charles and Diana’s relationship was a mess, he handled that horribly and yes, Camilla was the other woman.

    But before Diana’s unfortunate and premature death, they had been divorced, so I do not think one can hold it against him that he redid his life with Camilla. And as far as I can tell, she has done her job well and with great enthusiasm. You cannot ask for more, so – as a non British person with no stake in this whatsorever – i am all for her as Queen.

  18. Meow says:

    I recommend the play Charles III by Mike Bartlett – hilarious. And pretty convincing to be honest (right down to, er, Diana’s ghost haunting the palace and trolling Chaz and Willnot with prophecies that they shall be the beeest kiiiiing).

  19. robyn says:

    Seems wrong about Camilla and so disrespectful of Diana. The Royals did Diana a disservice by encouraging the weak kneed prince to marry her all those years ago. I feel like Diana was sacrificed for their ever shifting rules and “ideals” at the time.

  20. Mads says:

    There will be problems within the Church of England when Charles becomes King as his marriage to Camilla goes against church law. The being divorcees is not really an issue any more but the crucial factor is that Charles and Camilla’s adultery led to the breakdown of their respective marriages and the church does take that as a serious impediment. The monarch is Head of the Church of England and there will be some frantic manoeuvring behind the scenes because some prelates will be against acknowledging Camilla as Queen consort as they see the marriage as invalid under church law.

    • Maria says:

      Wasn’t that the point of the service at St Georges Chapel. They had to confess- on their knees, no less- their manifold sins and wickednesses?

    • notasugarhere says:

      Prominent scholars, politicians, and CoE authorities have said there will be no problem and that the marriage is valid. She will be Queen, but known officially as Princess Consort.

      On the civil wedding a Church blessing afterwards:

      “These arrangements have my strong support and are consistent with Church of England guidelines concerning remarriage which the Prince of Wales fully accepts as a committed Anglican and as prospective Supreme Governor of the Church of England.” – Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury

      The previous Archbishop of Canterbury was one of the people urging them to marry too.

      • spidey says:

        Henry VIII never had a problem with his wives becoming Queen!

        I’m sure she will be known as Queen Camilla.

      • notasugarhere says:

        :)

        All these moral arguments around a Church founded by a randy Catholic king who wanted to divorce his wife and marry his mistress. Divorced or killed 5 out of 6 wives eventually. But a widower and a divorcee are going to bring the whole hundreds of years monarchy down by being married?

    • LAK says:

      What Maria said.

      CoE accepts divorcees now.

  21. frisbee says:

    Will he be Charles III though? I read ages ago that he dislikes the title and thinks it sounds ‘doomed’ due to the fate of Charles I (be-headed) and the reputation of Charles II (a conniving bon viveur who sired illegitimate offspring all over the place) so he might restyle it as a King William V or King George VII (after the Queens beloved father). I still wouldn’t be surprised to see the monarchy slowly die and become diminished after the Queen passes, she’s held it together for a very long time, it’s going to be a huge psychological jolt when she’s gone.

    • notasugarhere says:

      There was talk for years that he wanted to take the name George to honor his grandfather. When W&K named their son George, that possibility decreased. Now people might claim he was trying to get more popularity by using a toddler’s PR, etc.

  22. Kitty says:

    Doesn’t matter to be because I think everyone knows a lot of royalist will not be supporters of Charles and Camilla and I hope she isn’t Queen consort. A lot of Commonwealth countries will leave the U.K. After The Queen passes which isn’t good especially with the whole Brexit.

  23. james says:

    Does the Guardian know something we don’t? I do hope HM wasn’t feeling under the weather this morning when she read this article over her cornflakes!

  24. Lucy says:

    I feel exhausted just from reading that.

  25. WendyNerd says:

    I never believed that “Princess Consort” nonsense anyways. It was just a way to please the Diana die-hards. Camilla going by “Duchess of Cornwall” is enough, and it always has been. These two have been married for a dozen years, and Camilla’s done an ace job. The Cornwall thing was a necessary precautionary measure, but both of them deserve to use proper titles once they ascend the throne. Pushing aside the fact that monarchy is lame and outdated, if it’s going to exist, I doubt one can ask for a better King and Queen than Charles and Camilla unlike *some* people. And believe it or not, despite the fact that Philip is a lousy, skeevy racist, I would almost prefer he be King Consort. This whole thing is based on ceremony and principle anyways, and the idea that a king is automatically sovereign over a queen is absurd and sexist (and yes, I do think establishing that a king CONSORT is still below his REGNANT wife, sends a stronger message than demoting female consorts to “Princess”).

    Camilla was always going to be queen.

  26. third ginger says:

    UK friends, what is the sentiment for keeping or doing away with the monarchy? Are there polls that show public opinion? In the US we see them mostly as celebrities or part of your rich history, but we are not paying for them. If you guys some day became a republic, what would be the process?

    • spidey says:

      @ third ginger. Apparently there is quite a decent majority in favour of keeping the monarchy – at the moment. Possibly because we don’t much fancy a Presidential type Head of State.

      As for becoming a republic – we did have one for 11 years – 1649/1660. Unfortunately it required the chopping off of Charles I’s head to achieve it!

      • third ginger says:

        I did not really forget that. LOL Unfortunately, we now have a tyrant [in spirit, anyway]. Hope you are doing well.

      • spidey says:

        @ third ginger – just recovering from an attack of lurgy – ie a nasty cold. Apart from that I’m fine. And you?

        Seriously, it would take the manifesto of a politicial party to do anything about paving the way for a republic, and they would have to be sure of winning.

        President Blair anyone?

  27. Cerys says:

    The wife of a king is always a queen. I can’t think of a historical precedent for anyone not taking the title. She is the legal wife of Charles and is currently the Princess of Wales but chooses not to use it because of it’s association with Diana. Considering the Church of England was founded due to a royal divorce I have always found their views on the subject quite hypocritical.
    I don’t have a problem with Camilla being called Queen Camilla. She does her fair share of royal duties, takes on difficult causes and comes across as being quite caring. I think she deserves the title far more than Waity will, if the monarchy lasts that long.

  28. ZIZABET says:

    For some strange reasons, reading the article brought tears to my eyes

  29. MaryJo says:

    Of course Camilla is going to be queen and so it should be.
    I think Charles will be a good king, he is hard-working and has been well schooled in The Firm’s business. His only major error was marrying a silly teenager, but considering how hard it was to find a suitable virgin, he can be forgiven.

    • spidey says:

      @ MaryJo -I doubt he would have married her left to his own wishes. They were never well suited.

    • Lady D says:

      …”how hard it was to find a suitable virgin” Awww, poor deceitful Charles who could only marry a virgin? Who decided she was suitable, and did they actually send her to the royal ob/gyn to make sure she was? Is that one of the laws of being royal? Wouldn’t that mean Phillip had to be a virgin to marry the Queen?
      Diana may have been a silly teenager, but skeevy Charles knew exactly what he was doing in using her for a wife.

      • Melly says:

        Diana actually did have to go to the Queen’s personal OB/GYN to verify she was a virgin. I know, crazy right?? Phillip didn’t have to be a virgin because he’s a man and sexism exists.

      • supposedtobeworking says:

        I believe the precedent for checking virginity was to ensure there could be little chance of illegitimate children around the time of marriage. Engagements used to be shorter – or at least the time between checking for virginity and marriage.

      • Lady D says:

        The whole country waiting with bated breath hoping she passed the test and was suitably virginal. In order to become a princess all your subjects must know what’s between your legs? That would either piss me right off, or it would be mortifying, maybe a bit of both.

  30. Livealot says:

    Must be strange to have the whole
    World await your death

  31. Tough Cookie says:

    I used to care a lot more about this (as an American) until Emperor Orange Babyfists came into power. Now all I can muster up is that Camilla looks great in that purple outfit.

  32. mazzie says:

    It’ll be interesting to see what happens with the countries that have the Queen/future King Charles as head of state .

  33. Sharnie says:

    She should Never be Queen, She is a Divorcee, with a Foul Mouth, and nothing like the Present Queen. She is A Rude Agorant Woman, She Was Cheating on her Husband, and Ruined the Marriage of Diana and Charles, She’s a Narsty Woman and God Forbid If She Ever Becomes Queen, Heaven Help is All, She Has Hubbie by the Undies, so through him she will rule. No One Wants This Witch to be Queen Ever. She’s nothing but a common s word.
    I think it would be a very wise choice if the Queen were to make Charles step down and place the younger royals in her place before she passes on , at least they could be trusted to continue all the good work the Queen has done over the years.
    As For Insulting and offending Princess Mary the way she did, She should never become Queen, All the Warning Signs are there. Charles needs to open his eyes and see what is actually going on with Camilla she a loose cannon and I have no doubt that she will stuff things up in a very big way. Just Sayin you know. And I am not the only person to think this.

    • james says:

      And breathe.

    • notasugarhere says:

      OFFS. Charles did not cheat on you. He did nothing to you personally. Charles and Diana were a bad match from the beginning. He wanted a good royal wife, emotionally-damaged Diana wanted to be saved by a Barbara Cartland prince who would never be allowed to divorce her. They both married the idea of each other, and it was never going to last.

      Do you feel so strongly about the (at least) three wives of the married men with whom Diana cheated? Diana had no problem helping other people break their marriage vows, as long as she wanted the man involved the wife didn’t matter.

      • spidey says:

        People forget that don’t they notasugarhere?

      • HappyMom says:

        Exactly. Dear god-people get themselves so defensive of her.

      • Maria says:

        And let’s face it. She is good for him, relaxes him. People make mistakes, but she and Charles have redeemed themselves. She will be a good queen consort.

      • Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

        Diana ruined the marriage of that english rugby player Will Carling?!? His long suffering ex-wife went on record at the time saying so.

      • Jeesie says:

        She also had no problem with Charles other lovers, she was even very friendly with one.

        It wasn’t affairs in general she took issue with, she just hated Camilla. It’s not really surprising. Diana was wildly insecure and very focused on her looks and image, and here’s this very confident woman who’s captured her husband’s attention despite being less attractive. She had something Diana could never attain, and she didn’t give a crap about the one thing Diana did have.

        I saw it play out with my own parents. My mother didn’t care at all about my father’s many affairs, unless she found out one of the women was fat or plain. She valued her looks highly, and when she realised my father didn’t care about that it drove her up the wall.

    • KiddVicious says:

      Camilla did not ruin their marriage. Their marriage was a disaster from the beginning.

      And there’s nothing wrong with a foul mouthed Queen. They get things done.

  34. Chinoiserie says:

    I always hate the talk of Queen Elizabeth dying since my grandmother is the same age and she is not going anywhere soon so nor is anyone her age! I know it’s still but I am just happy seeing another old lady who is healthy around.

  35. Rae says:

    Charles and Camilla are, and will be, a great team. When the time comes, I will truly be sad when she passes (hopefully not too soon), but I feel positive about a Charles reign.

    My eyes roll to the back of my head when people start going on about Diana this, Diana that. Diana was no angel herself; if she hadn’t died, I very much think people wouldn’t be half as enamoured with her as they are now.

    • james says:

      And of course she would have aged instead of being stuck in people’s minds as she was when she died. Because we are shallow like that.

  36. Gene123 says:

    It must be so weird to have to wait until one of your parents die for you to start your true “career”

    I love my parents and I cant imagine being happy about them dying (Not that Charles will be)

  37. Alexandria says:

    I think she is not perturbed by this kind of articles. Being so attached to the institution and having a very high sense of duty and adherence to clockwork pageantry, I think to her, this is how it is going to be. I’m sure she also provides input into how her death is handled and of course, has prepared her will (and revises it more consistently than us average folks). This is not about waiting for her death. This is just about preparing for it when it comes. As for news networks, it is not uncommon for them to have prepared advance obituaries and features for people of significance. As the Queen enters her 90s, I also don’t find it surprising if UK television news networks also have a protocol on how to announce it. This is royalty and business at work, emotions rarely come into place. I suspect Charles will do his immediate grieving when he has a few private moments in between the funeral arrangements. It is his mother after all. When there’s a lack of activity, the grieving intensifies.

    Speaking of emotions, this is not about yours. Camilla will be queen. Doesn’t change the fact that all of them cheated. She will be queen if Charles outlives HM. Judging from work efforts alone, a better and more prepared queen than Queen Catherine for now (I forgot if it’s K or C).

  38. It turns my stomach that a woman that broke up a marriage should end up being made a queen. What does that tell our children? Shame on Charles, he should step aside for William and Kate.

  39. Bridget says:

    This is probably going to get me in trouble, but I don’t really get the grudge holding over a crappy marriage. People get divorced. Marriages suck sometimes. The whole “don’t you know Diana was only NINETEEN and people were mean to her!” just seems so flimsy after a couple of decades.

    Alright, let the death threats commence!

  40. Prairiegirl says:

    God save the Queen. Seriously.

  41. Mary says:

    I loved Diana but she made her bed, this is the 20th year she’s been gone and life must go on.
    Rest in Peace Diana.

  42. PoliteTeaSipper says:

    I liked Diana. I’m sure it would have been terribly devastating for her to look into a crystal ball and see that the future would see Camilla as Queen and her death, but what’s done is done. Life goes on. What else can you do?

    • james says:

      Would a crystal ball have shown her happily married to Dodi Fayad in the current political climate I wonder?

  43. Achoo! says:

    Camilla will be Queen Consort because she is married to Charles , just as she is legally Princess of Wales now. Whether or not she is actually crown Queen as Elizabeth Bowes Lyon was, will be a very different matter.

  44. Seriously says:

    I really like Camilla, her and Charles are meant to be together, it’s so easy to see, I hope she is crowned Queen, Diana had numerous affairs and also affairs with married men. Charles and Diana never should have married it was a mistake from the get go. If she were still alive I would have hoped she also went on to find her true love.