Queen Camilla

[Pea-n-Me]

I'm curious why Camillia gets to be Queen Consort, but Prince Phillip couldn't be King Consort. Why did he have to settle for Prince?

I saw the answer to this in an article yesterday. I’m probably not going to explain it correctly (and I’m sure people will let me know ), but a King (of any type) had to be born a king, the title couldn’t be conveyed by a birth-right Queen (essentially because she’s a woman and those laws hadn’t changed yet, at least in Phillip’s time). Things may be different if Charlotte ever reigns (because yes, Queen Elizabeth did change something about those laws when she was born as referred to above).

 

[DisneyMomx7]

Homewrecker - hate that she will be referred to as Queen!

 

[CdnCarrie]

I'm wondering if that tradition may eventually change somehow. Hmmm, probably too awkward...Sort-Of-A-King-But-Not-Really Rupert? Naw, too unwieldy on the mugs, towels and such.

Didn't I hear a few years ago that an Act tinkered with the line of succession so that Princess Charlotte retained her birth order position when Prince Louis was born?

Formerly, Louis would have followed George in line, I believe. That stodgy old male primogeniture thingy.

Yes they changed it when Kate was expecting Louis so Charlotte would not get bumped by her baby brother.
It had to pass in all Commonwealth countries. I remember when our Canadian Parliament passed the act to amend the succession line.

As for the spouse of the Queen - King outranks Queen - they are not going to give a rank to a commoner that marries into the family that will outrank the family member that inherited the throne. Hence Prince Albert and Prince Philip rather than King Albert and King Philip.

 

[Her Dotness]

King Consort as a title does exist however the British haven't allowed that title to be used....

It looks like Queen Victoria wanted to use King Consort for Albert but the British government didn't want to make a bill to allow that so she settled on Prince Consort instead.

Interesting! Did you learn why? Or was it simply that women were stuck in wife/mother roles back then no matter how much brighter and more capable they might be?

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. What went down between Charles and Diana was awful and they were both at fault. They were horribly mismatched, even on paper, and Charles should have been allowed to marry her from the beginning. I personally feel they bent over backwards to be sensitive to the situation. They had been in a relationship for decades and still waited more than 7 years after his ex's death to marry, and even longer after Charles was divorced. They stated at the time that Camilla would be known as Princess consort when the time came and would not use the title Princess of Wales out of respect for William and Harry in particular but the public's feelings about the situation as well.

Charles and Camilla were handed a raw deal decades ago and so far as I know Camilla has supported the queen extremely well since she and Charles married nearly 20 years ago. She absolutley deserves the title of Queen consort when the time comes and good on the queen for publicly supporting that.

If Harry doesn't like it he can get over it from his California mansion.

I’m sorry, but I think there is an element of victim-blaming in the bolded statement. I won’t rehash it all because I’ve already stated how I feel about it in my many posts on this thread. But Diana was just barely an adult (19) when she was targeted by Charles and she was deceived by him into thinking he loved her and theirs would be a relationship for life, and for love. Her behavior spiraled downward as she came to see the realization. Her life was essentially ruined by this charade.

 

[Moliphino]

Yes they changed it when Kate was expecting Louis so Charlotte would not get bumped by her baby brother.
It had to pass in all Commonwealth countries. I remember when our Canadian Parliament passed the act to amend the succession line.

I thought it was when she was pregnant with George (before anyone knew he was a boy). So if he had been a girl he would've been first in line no matter what.

 

[Her Dotness]

I’m sorry, but I think there is an element of victim-blaming in the bolded statement. I won’t rehash it all because I’ve already stated how I feel about it in my many posts on this thread. But Diana was just barely an adult (19) when she was targeted by Charles and she was deceived by him into thinking he loved her and theirs would be a relationship for life, and for love. Her behavior spiraled downward as she came to see the realization. Her life was essentially ruined by this charade.

I'd counter that I perceive an unwholesome amount of Charles-blaming in your post.

He reportedly did the best he could, being pushed to marry already since he was over 30. And I think it was Mountbatten who pressed the case for an innocent, virginal type.

Targeted by Charles? Not quite, I'd say. It was much more complex than that.

 

[CdnCarrie]

I thought it was when she was pregnant with George (before anyone knew he was a boy). So if he had been a girl he would've been first in line no matter what.

That could be. Time flies.

ETA - I think the whole “he said, she says” dissecting of the Charles/Diana marriage is so silly.
Only 2 people know what really happened and it was 30 years ago.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Interesting! Did you learn why? Or was it simply that women were stuck in wife/mother roles back then no matter how much brighter and more capable they might be?

One of the sources I used is wiki so it's possible the exact reason isn't quite as it was written but it was said because he was a foreign individual, I suppose that might have made more sense in the 1800s and maybe in preservation of the monarchy's lines that made/make sense. I think the allowance of Charlotte's succession seems like that door is at least open to adjusting things. It's possible they just haven't thought to revisit it. I don't think it's all that common now or in the past for monarchies in general to use King Consort though.

 

[MakiraMarlena]

if they'd let Charles marry her in the first place, none of this stuff would have happened. Camilla was older, divorced already and had kids, the family was steering him to marry someone younger who could crank out some heirs. I would guess that Queen Consort would be her proper official title. The big issue is that she's a second spouse, but it's not like that hasn't happened before and won't happen again.

I believe Diana retained the title Princess of Wales and Camilla is the Duchess of Cornwall currently. She may have refused the Princess of Wales title due to sentiments in the country at the time.

The lines of succession were changed pretty recently, before Prince George was born, it is true that if George had been a girl he would have retained his third place finish. His sister Charlotte is still 4th and her younger brother is 5th. In the prior succession, Louis would have been moved into 4th and Charlotte would be 5th.

It wasn't retroactive, so Princess Anne for example is still below her brothers and their children in succession.

 

[lovin'fl]

Homewrecker - hate that she will be referred to as Queen!

Though if it ticks off Harry and Meg I am all for it.

 

[Marrila]

I'd counter that I perceive an unwholesome amount of Charles-blaming in your post.

He reportedly did the best he could, being pushed to marry already since he was over 30. And I think it was Mountbatten who pressed the case for an innocent, virginal type.

Targeted by Charles? Not quite, I'd say. It was much more complex than that.

It was complex.
It's been 25 years. I much prefer to remember her fondly than as a perpetual victim.
I'd like to think that had she lived she would have continued to come into her own.

 

[Karin1984]

Homewrecker - hate that she will be referred to as Queen!

Let me correct you, the current Queen is the homewrecker. Her and society/history/protocol etc.

As mentioned, if it had been a different time, different choices would have been made in the early 80s.

The marriage between Diana and Charles would probably have been loveless, regardless of Camilla. Charles loving someone else made the divorce decision easy. If not for Camilla, Diana would have been stuck even more. Because a loveless marriage is hard to get out of.

 

[Moliphino]

That could be. Time flies.

Looks like it didn't fully come into law until Kate was pregnant with Charlotte, but it is retroactive for anyone born after October 2011 (when it was first presented).

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I'd counter that I perceive an unwholesome amount of Charles-blaming in your post.

He reportedly did the best he could, being pushed to marry already since he was over 30. And I think it was Mountbatten who pressed the case for an innocent, virginal type.

Targeted by Charles? Not quite, I'd say. It was much more complex than that.

Yes, there is a lot of Charles-blaming, and it’s warranted. He was more the adult in the relationship and, by virtue of who he was, also held all the power. He was also the one in love with another woman who went along with this deception which ruined the life of the young woman he (and others) used to make babies. With no regard for her feelings, I might add. His own sons see this for what it was and to this day, hold some resentments about how their mother was treated by him. They’ve tried to overcome a lot of it for the sake of harmony, but, by all reports, it is still there.

That could be. Time flies.

ETA - I think the whole “he said, she says” dissecting of the Charles/Diana marriage is so silly.
Only 2 people know what really happened and it was 30 years ago.

So not true.

Though if it ticks off Harry and Meg I am all for it.

I’m actually with Harry on this one, if he’s been quiet because of his feelings about this in terms of how it relates to the treatment of his mother.

It was complex.
It's been 25 years. I much prefer to remember her fondly than as a perpetual victim.
I'd like to think that had she lived she would have continued to come into her own.

I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive. Her life was tragic. Yes, she was the most photographed and beloved woman in the world in her time, had more money and wealth than most of us can ever dream of, but, ironically, she didn’t have the one thing she wanted most, which was simply the love of the man she married. I do agree that, had she lived, things hopefully might have been better for her.

 

[Her Dotness]

It was complex.
It's been 25 years. I much prefer to remember her fondly than as a perpetual victim.
I'd like to think that had she lived she would have continued to come into her own.

Indeed. I agree.

My view of Diana these...wow, 40 years after the wedding!...is that it's kinder to consider how desperate the Royal Family's situation was once she began exhibiting aberrant behaviors and clearly struggling to adapt to the enormously public life of a Royal.

I grew up not fully understanding the struggles of and damage unintentionally done by mentally ill relatives.

As a result, I think compassion more suited than condemnation of how the Royal Family attempted to deal with a traumatic situation for all involved, Camilla included.

 

[Karin1984]

Looks like it didn't fully come into law until Kate was pregnant with Charlotte, but it is retroactive for anyone born after October 2011 (when it was first presented).

I think that happens with other of these laws in Europe as well, but only changed when necessary.

Last year our heir princess in NL came of age. And a politician brought up what would we do if she turned out to be a lesbian. There are some old laws about marriage and kids. Our PM said that we will cross that bridge when we get there. He was not against changing the laws for the princess, but with covid there are more important topics to spend time and money on.

 

[Sinder]

Yes they changed it when Kate was expecting Louis so Charlotte would not get bumped by her baby brother.
It had to pass in all Commonwealth countries. I remember when our Canadian Parliament passed the act to amend the succession line.

As for the spouse of the Queen - King outranks Queen - they are not going to give a rank to a commoner that marries into the family that will outrank the family member that inherited the throne. Hence Prince Albert and Prince Philip rather than King Albert and King Philip.

Wasn't Prince Philip an actual Prince? I mean I know he wasn't born into British royalty but he wasn't exactly a commoner right?
What I find the most bizarre of the Royal traditions is the picking of a new name when you become a King, or a Queen.

 

[CdnCarrie]

if they'd let Charles marry her in the first place, none of this stuff would have happened. Camilla was older, divorced already and had kids, the family was steering him to marry someone younger who could crank out some heirs. I would guess that Queen Consort would be her proper official title. The big issue is that she's a second spouse, but it's not like that hasn't happened before and won't happen again.

Camilla was single when her and Charles were originally dating in the 70s. They should have married then.

Wasn't Prince Philip an actual Prince? I mean I know he wasn't born into British royalty but he wasn't exactly a commoner right?
What I find the most bizarre of the Royal traditions is the picking of a new name when you become a King, or a Queen.

He was a Prince of Greece but also a great grandchild of Queen Victoria.

 

[CdnCarrie]

Yes, there is a lot of Charles-blaming, and it’s warranted. He was more the adult in the relationship and, by virtue of who he was, also held all the power. He was also the one in love with another woman who went along with this deception which ruined the life of the young woman he (and others) used to make babies. With no regard for her feelings, I might add. His own sons see this for what it was and to this day, hold some resentments about how their mother was treated by him. They’ve tried to overcome a lot of it for the sake of harmony, but, by all reports, it is still there.

So not true.

I’m actually with Harry on this one, if he’s been quiet because of his feelings about this in terms of how it relates to the treatment of his mother.

I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive. Her life was tragic. Yes, she was the most photographed and beloved woman in the world in her time, had more money and wealth than most of us can ever dream of, but, ironically, she didn’t have the one thing she wanted most, which was simply the love of the man she married. I do agree that, had she lived, things hopefully might have been better for her.

Unless they were into polygamy yes only TWO people were in the marriage and knew exactly what happened.