Why Camilla must become our Queen

      
  Editor-in-Chief
Posted: 26 January 2014 12:14 am

Edited by: Martin | Spotted An Error?

It’s a subject that divides people across the country and indeed, around the world. Should the Duchess of Cornwall become Queen when Prince Charles accedes to the throne? Some argue she cannot, others that she must – I’m going to explain in this article exactly why I believe Camilla must become Queen.

origin_9409339190

It was a defining moment in the progression of the British Monarchy. The day in 2005 that the future king of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth Realms married a divorcée. The last time such a thing had happened, in 1936, the King had to renounce his right to the throne. But times have moved on, haven’t they?

Clarence House, at the time of the 2005 wedding, made it known that Camilla – upon her husband’s accession to the throne – would be known as HRH The Princess Consort, a title which has never been used in Britain before and was contrived in order to try and quell negative public feeling towards her when she was first introduced to the public eye.

It is now 9 years on from this and much has happened in between then and now. We’ve got to know Camilla for who she is, not what we think she’s done.

At least, I thought we had. Whilst support is increasingly moving in her favour, there are still many whose feelings of contempt towards the Duchess of Cornwall have led them to the conclusion that she should not be queen.

From my point of view, I find the argument people cite against her becoming Queen typically consistent of shallow observations about her past and in some exceptional cases, comments on appearance, but nothing that amounts to a sustainable reason in modern times why this woman shouldn’t be our Queen.

In fact, her many virtues are far more significant than the superficial arguments offered by opposition to her becoming Queen. For one, she genuinely cares about what she’s doing – picking causes that matter to her and taking a genuine interest in them as well as drawing public attention to them in the process. She is also incredibly assured of her behaviour in public, she has never put a foot wrong as a member of the Royal Family and across the globe has been an excellent ambassador for the UK along with her husband.

I’m not avoiding the obvious here, I am acutely aware of the argument borne by outraged Diana fans and certain close-minded individuals but isn’t it time to move on? Don’t get me wrong: what happened with Prince Charles and Diana, Princess of Wales was tragic but none of us can know exactly what went on in their marriage and to apportion all blame on Camilla seems unreasonable, and for what purpose? Are we trying to punish her?

To me, the idea of this kind of judgement of Camilla is absurd. Personal matters should surely be immaterial to whether or not she should be our Queen.

large_8719658479

To deny Camilla the title of Queen could also set a dangerous precedent. To become personally selective with titles brings the whole system of monarchy into question. Giving republicans any ammunition like that would not be in any way desirable.

For me, the bottom line is that to deny Camilla the title of Queen would be the ultimate snub to all that she has done. In my view, she has successfully challenged public perception of her and carved out a unique role for herself in the face of the frankly unreasonable prejudices carried by some towards her over her past.

It is through her commitment to her role that I feel she has even earn the right, if that’s how to put it, to be our Queen.

Ultimately, the process of trying to change the legal title of the wife of a king would be an ugly one, and not one any self-respecting politician would willingly go through. It would essentially involve a full political debate before passing an act of parliament and as well as being a possible questionable use of parliamentary time and creating a whole host of problems in the Commonwealth realms – as well as seeming personally invidious towards Camilla.

My concluding thoughts must be that I for one fully support a Queen Camilla. Quite simply because anything else just wouldn’t be right.

Contribute your thoughts on the Queen Camilla debate in the comments box below.

photo credit: shaunamey and UK Parliament via photopin cc


  • Karen119

    My thoughts on the title of the king’s wife have absolutely NOTHING to do with the current cast of characters. For years I have felt that if the Queen’s husband is NOT given the title of King (and I understand why he doesn’t and am in total agreement with it) then the King’s wife should NOT be titled as Queen. Princess Consort or Princess of the Realm or some other title should suffice.

    • Royal Central

      This is a reasonable position – though it comes down to common law rather than any kind of institutional sexism. Woman traditionally takes husband’s title & name, Monarchy reflects this. I can see your reasoning but I think the status quo is logical.

      • Guest

        I’m not British. If you want the monarchy by Queen Camilla, then why not ldarle the title of King, the Prince Consort Philip, husband of Queen Elizabeth II

      • Edith Cruz

        I’m not British. If the monarchy by Queen Camilla wants, then why not give the title of King, the Prince Consort Philip, husband of Queen Elizabeth II

  • Ricky

    I’m very glad to see this article, which was very well written and addressed all the relevant points, IMHO.

    A monarchy is based on a country’s traditions and precedents. In the United Kingdom, when a Prince of Wales becomes His Majesty the King, his wife’s title is Her Majesty the Queen. That’s just the way it is, and has always been.

    Constitutionally, it would require an act of Parliament to downgrade Camilla’s status and I think no one would dare introduce such legislation after Prince Charles’ accession. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that even if something of this nature made it’s way through Parliament, it would still require Royal Assent; that is, the monarch’s signature. Does anyone think Charles would sign it?

    I loved Diana too, but what’s done is done and it’s time to move on and focus on the future. Charles and Camilla work very hard at what they do, and their personal relationship is no one else’s business. It’s long past time to stop bashing the Duchess of Cornwall.

    • Peter

      Well said Ricky. My thoughts entirely.

    • Neil

      Ricky. Absolute drivel. Focus on the future? My God. Is that what he was doing when telling our future Queen he wanted to be her Tampon. I and many others will never forgive or forget their antics against a lovely lady he used just to bear him children while carrying on with that dried up ………
      They can rot in hell for all I care. What an example to the future on how to develop loving relationships with truth and decency.

  • unbatedmedusa

    She will alway`s be nothing but a s**t on the side.
    And i`ll give it the same respect it gave to her lover`s wife……as in none at all!!
    He could be become king tomorrow….THAT w***e will always be beneath me

    and i`ll never have any respect for it or him while he`s with it!
    THAT is never going to be no queen of mine !!
    I`ll decide who i respect thank you :)

    • Ricky

      The Duchess of Cornwall is Prince Charles’ wife, and as such she is a senior member of the Royal Family. In due course she will be Queen of the United Kingdom.

      The article above concentrates on the good work Camilla has undertaken, rather than focusing on negative opinions of past events.

      You’re entitled to your opinion of course, but I don’t understand why you would come to this site with such a negative comment. Perhaps you’re new here, but the tone of your remarks is quite out of place with the positive atmosphere Royal Central tries to maintain.

      • unbatedmedusa

        Are you out of you mind?
        The article above concentrates on the good work Camilla has undertaken….
        as in sleeping with someone else husband from start to finish of a marriage to the point it destroyed it even after there were kids.
        Nothing can wipe that slate clean!
        And as for….. I don’t understand why you would come to this site with such a negative comment…. thats what its for to voice your opinion
        and when im told some moraless s**t might be representing my country as Queen trust me im going to have one!

        • Anni

          Again, opinion yes, but you cannot change the onward march of history. As the world goes these days, Camilla is pretty darned moral and a wonderful person overall.

    • Royal Central

      This is the exact attitude I’m on about! A sense of false superiority, as if you know exactly what went on in her life and you’re judging her for it. It’s disgusting that you would personally attack someone in that way. Grow up!

      • Nick

        unbatedmedus, that is a despicable thing to say! If you were my child I would wash your mouth with soap and water! That is the senseless attitude of a child, one full of a false sense of superiority, shameful!

      • Cynthia

        Diana is on tape describing exactly how Camilla made her feel. I don’t see anything wrong with judging Camilla negatively for it. If I can’t be grown up because I attack Camilla, then I would rather not be grown up, thank you.

        • Anni

          Diana is dead and gone. Move on. Who really cares about how she felt back then. The princes quite love Camilla. If they can, you can at least quietly ignore her.

          • Cynthia

            No, I am not going to move on. When Diana died, I vowed that I would hate Camilla for the rest of my life and I meant it. I care how Diana felt back then, and I think William and Harry are stabbing their mother in the back if they “quite love Camilla”.

          • Kathy Gebhardt

            William and Harry, bless their hearts, put on a good show. Camilla makes papa happy, and as everyone is aware, that MUST be the most important thing in everyone’s world….note obvious sarcasm….”Tolerate” is a word I would use….love? Nope….

          • Anni

            Can you be sure they have not grown to love her. I’ve read a biography and she’s very well liked by those who know her. I’ve read they love her very much. Life does indeed move on. It is not disloyal to their mother. No one will ever displace her in their hearts, but maybe their hearts are big enough for loving a step mom also. Why not!

          • Cynthia

            I disagree that it is not disloyal to their mother. I think Diana would heartbroken if she knew her sons “love” Camilla as you claim.

          • Anni

            You must be a very unhappy person indeed.

          • Ricky

            Do you think Diana would want people to go on hating someone on her behalf for the rest of their lives?

            I remember seeing a banner someone placed on the railings of Kensington Palace just before the funeral that referred to her as “Diana of Love.” I think you could find a better way to honour her memory than pledging to hate Camilla.

          • Kathy Gebhardt

            I never use the word hate. Too strong a word. Unfortunately, we will never know how Diana would feel about anything, and shouldn’t really make assumptions about it at this point in a futile attempt to have anyone’s negative opinions change about Camilla.

          • Ricky

            I was replying to Cynthia when I spoke about hating Camilla. But I have to agree that it’s a waste of time trying to change some people’s opinions about her.

            I thought Diana was wonderful, and when Prince Charles remarried, I was undecided about what to think of Camilla. I suppose I felt that I would be disloyal to Diana’s memory to have a positive opinion of the new Duchess of Cornwall.

            But over the years my opinion of her improved as I saw her dedication to the charity work she has undertaken. I feel much the same as the author of the article above. I’m very much aware that many people will continue hating Camilla, but I’m entitled to my opinion too.

          • Anni

            I certainly agree. If she was the woman I believe she had become, she would not want this hate thing going on at all. Cannot imagine why anyone feels hate for life is some sort of virtue.

          • Cynthia

            Di could hold a grudge longer than anyone, and so can I.

          • Anni

            And I am truly sorry for you.

          • nmfd72

            well said!

          • Anni

            I am seriously sorry for you. Hate corrodes the hater and doesn’t hurt the object of their hate one bit.

          • Anni

            I’ve decided you’re joking to provoke an interesting conversation. You could not actually feel this way.

          • Cynthia

            I really don’t like Camilla, and that is no joke.

      • Justine Mee

        The facts are the facts, please stop being an arse kisser. She was a pig who could not keep her legs closed when the ring went on Diana’s finger and not her own. Bottom line no matter what the circumstances it does not justify sleeping with another woman’s husband and cheating on your own. She is a moraless, unscrupulous guttersnipe. The minute he was married she should have backed away, and he is as much of a sleaze for using a naive girl as a brood mare. They deserve each other. Whom needs to grow up is you. The one who thinks adultery, and marriage under false pretenses is acceptable if the excuse is right! It’s called “being an adult”, which clearly neither one of them were. The idea you would even entertain an excuse for them is disgusting at best, and disturbing at worst. Never mind pathetic and disrespectful to the memory of a mother of a future king

      • unbatedmedusa

        Tell you what……..seeing as there is a new moral standered going on
        Who thinks next time some married p**k comes on to me i should date him kids or no kids! rub his wifes face in it to the point she has to leave to save her own self respect?
        Just for my own happiness :)…….anyone ??????

        • Ricky

          If someone’s being hurt, then of course it’s wrong.

          But there’s no way to change the past, and there’s nothing to be gained by holding onto a grudge forever. Doing that only makes the pain last longer.

          • Cynthia

            I enjoy holding grudges. Saying mean things about Camilla makes me feel good, if nothing else.

        • Anni

          It didn’t even begin to play out that way.

    • Anni

      You may, of course, decide who to respect, but you have not say whatsoever in who will be your queen. Trust me on this.

      • Cynthia

        You make a good argument against monarchy. I know first ladies can be unpopular too, but the nation is not stuck with them for life.

        • Anni

          I’m American. I’d give anything to have what you all have. At least in this era with Parliament strong, the monarch not all-powerful and the real commitment the royal family shows to the citizens and the country, as well as the vast amounts of time and treasure the Firm puts forth doing good, giving stability, something to count on. Our politics suck. One can get whiplash now that the next elections start right after the ones just passed. You have a middle to hold you together, we don’t.

          • Cynthia

            How can you have a democracy without politicians? Would you rather have an absolute monarchy?

    • kkeri12

      Fortunately for everyone else on the planet you don’t speak for us unbatedmedusa, you speak only for yourself. Just as you are free to hate whomever you choose, so are the rest of us free to like or at least tolerate whomever WE choose. I’d be willing to bet a considerable sum of money that the Duchess of Cornwall isn’t going to lose any sleep because you consider her to be her husband’s ‘s**t on the side.’

  • Blueeyesofelvis Gett

    If one royal member had to give up the throne for love and a twice divorced women, Then all should apply no matter the reason. They set these rules for a reason.

    • Ricky

      King Edward VIII did not have to give up his throne in order to marry Mrs. Simpson, because there are no such rules. The British government of the day, and those of the Empire countries, felt she was unacceptable as a Queen Consort, and told the King that if he married her they would all resign.

      King Edward had choices. He could have gone ahead and married her, remained on the throne, and accepted the resignations of the Prime Minister and the others. He could have stayed on the throne as a bachelor, or married someone else later on. It was his decision to abdicate, and as we all know, he married Mrs. Simpson the following year.

      Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin’s main objection to Wallis Simpson was that she was a divorcee, with two living husbands. In those days divorce was seen as a major social disgrace, but attitudes have changed considerably since 1936.

      • Zachary Davis

        I think just about everyone in the government resigning would have been a disaster, both at home and abroad. Random question though: does the commonwealth law state anything on what is to be done if such a mass resignation happens? I am rather curious about such things.

        • Ricky

          In political matters, there’s always someone looking for an opportunity to hold senior offices such as Prime Minister or other cabinet positions.

          Whichever political party holding a majority in Parliament would have someone at it’s head, and the monarch or Governor-General would appoint them.

          • Zachary Davis

            Okay. Thanks for the info.

    • Christopher-trier

      Edward VIII was also a Nazi sympathiser who gave the British Government a horrendous headache. George V predicted that within a year he would destroy himself and made it clear that he hoped nothing stood in the way of George VI and Elizabeth II from taking the throne. Had Edward VIII not been such a bloody nuisance he probably could have remained king.

    • Sam Salzman

      One Royal Member cut off his wife’s head after their relationship grew sour. By your logic, we should have done that with Diana too.

      • micmac

        Actually that particular “Royal Member” cut off the heads of two of his wives, and ‘divorced’ another two. Though what Henry VIII was really after with those ‘divorces’ was annulments rather than divorces. And yes royal wives did have to mind their “p’s & q’s” in days gone by. It is only in the late 20th century that Royal husbands have also been expected to be more circumspect with their behaviour.

    • micmac

      I got the impression that Wallis Simpson had been suspected of having an affair with Von Ribbentrop, who was Nazi Germany’s ambassador to UK, which is one reason why she was not wanted as Edward VIII’s wife. Also, she was American & not native-born British, unlike Camilla. And most importantly of all, unlike Camilla, who already has a grown-up family, and is now too old to have more children with Charles, Wallis Simpson’s marrying Edward VIII in 1936 could have changed the succession from what it is now. So it won’t hurt anyone or change anything if Camilla is made Queen Consort.

      • Ricky

        There was a great deal of lurid gossip about Mrs. Simpson going around then, even before the story of her romance with the King got into the British newspapers. But it’s just speculation, since anyone who might have known something wouldn’t be alive today to bear witness. That being the case, I think it’s unfair to judge her based on conjecture.

        But even if there had been King Edward and Queen Wallis it would not have changed the succession. The Duchess of Windsor is known to have told a few people close to her that her husband was not “heir-conditioned,” as she put it.

        The succession would have been the same, only delayed for about 20 years. His niece would still have been Heiress Presumptive, and would have become Queen after his death in 1972.

  • Cynthia

    If success laws can be changed then other things regarding the monarchy can be changed too. Oh well, if Camilla is Queen let’s make life difficult for her. Call her ugly, send her hate mail and general negative vibes her way. Hope she cracks under the strain, The Daily Express says she’s taken up smoking again. Good..

    • Rachel Oxley

      Why are you so resentful, Cynthia? She is the love of Prince Charles’ life, who he should have been allowed to marry in the first place..when Charles is King..she can be nothing other than Queen.. I would be honoured to meet her and curtsey to her.

      • Cynthia

        I want to be Prince Charles’s mistress. I can love him better than Camilla can.

        • Anni

          Having us on. Following the whole conversation shouts that you are having a giggle here.

          • Cynthia

            No. I really want to be Prince Charles’s mistress. I think he’s cute and I want to hurt Camilla.

  • roger

    it was not good enough in 1936 why should we lower our standards now .so like the aussies Canada we don’t want Charles and the divorcee. also Charles has weird idea of being defender of the faiths NO he is defender of the church of England and that goes back to henry the 8th and queen Elizabeth the 1st the founders of the church of ENGLAND if he becomes king he is the head of our church not any other so don’t kill our church its suffered enough with the loonie lefties. pass the crown on a generation to the younger royals they look pristine and not soiled

    • micmac

      That is up to the Law of Succession and the UK Parliament. I’m not even sure that Canada has passed those amendments to the Law of Succession to permit a girl to inherit the throne, rather than a younger brother. And since the third in line is a boy anyway there is probably no more hurry.

  • DaveUWSNYC

    I’m not British, but it seems to me that one of the strongest reasons for Monarchy (and particularly today for Constitutional Monarchy) is that it has rules and traditions that keep it a timeless embodiment of the State and the continuity through time and space of a particular people. As the Editor clearly states, tampering with these rules and traditions breaks the inner logic of this kind of system (for example, something which one of your monarchs, Charles II, clearly recognized when refusing to capitulate to those pressuring him to alter the succession by passing over his Catholic brother James, Duke of York, and choosing his illegitimate son, James, Duke of Monmouth).

    • Lena

      You mean like the tradition of Colonialism? It is time for the royals to join the real world – work for their living and for the absurd class divisive and undemocratic Monarchy is abolished.

      • kkeri12

        Lena, you just very clearly proved the position of the article. If tradtions such as the Kings wife being called the Queen Consort are not adhered to, the Monarchy would be brought into question. The wife of the King has always been known as the Queen Consort, and only an act of parliament can change that. It is what it is.

    • Zachary Davis

      I agree. Really the monarch is a symbol of unity. And a monarchy such as this embodies tradition. It is a noble and admirable thing. We should not throw out the past because it is old.

  • Karen Carlson

    Camilla should only be the consort of Charles should he be made King.I would prefer he be passed over for William to succeed.

    • Christopher-trier

      But that would require acts of parliament in all Commonwealth Realms. Merely allowing for universal primogeniture too a concerted effort to implement despite it being well and truly time. For something as minor as this it really is not worth the effort.

    • Ricky

      That is exactly what will happen in due course. Camilla will be Queen Consort when Charles inherits the throne. And the crown will not skip a generation because it just doesn’t work that way. William’s time will come later on; be patient!

    • micmac

      Whichever title is used, whether Queen or not, Camilla would still be the consort of Charles, nothing more and nothing less. England, itself, has had at least 6 Queens who could rule in their own right as Queens Regnant, including our present Queen Elizabeth II. All the rest were Queen Consorts, the wives of Kings.
      There were two consorts of these Queens Regnant who got to be entitled KIngs, either because in the case of Philip II, because he was already King of Spain, or because William III had a valid claim to the English & Scottish throne, himself. There was a good political reason why the remaining Prince Consorts were not offered the position of King Consort, if such a position exists anywhere at all. And no, I don’t think Charles should be passed over for William who needs the time to enjoy his new family, whilst he still can, and to amass experience in his position.

  • Baron Antonio Massimo Massa

    I disagree. She should not be queen of England because A) she is a divorcee’, and the King of England is the head of the Anglican Church B) he was the lover of Prince Charles before and after he married Lady Diana B) for respect of William and Harry C) if she become queen of England may people turn away from British Monarchy.

    • Daniel Crowley

      Uh, the Anglican church only exists to celebrate divorce.

      • mark

        The beauty of not having a rigid written constitution is its flexible and can adapted to any circumstances.

        Besides Charles remarried in st George chapel, not Westminster abbey.

        • Ricky

          Prince Charles married Camilla in a civil ceremony at Windsor Guildhall. A ceremony of blessing followed at St. George’s Chapel in Windsor Castle.

      • Connie Stannard Lewis

        it was Started by Henry v111 so he could get a divorce !

        • Anni

          There were actually a few more good reasons.

          • Anni

            And, they were annulments, not divorces.

    • Mikael

      Baron, its Queen of the united kingdom and not England. It has been like this since 1701 and the glorious reign of HM Queen Anne.

  • Jabez

    Absolutely silly and pointless issue to discuss. Get rid of the lot of them!

    • markmarkgable101@hmail.com

      Republicans are so miserable. That’s why they have no support.

      They’re like “a candle in the wind”.

      Useless..!!!!

  • Thomas Patrick Allen

    Absolutely. Long live the future King! Long live the future Queen!

    • Ted Duggan

      And WHY ?

  • Kathy Gebhardt

    A snub to what she has done? Well, we all know what she has done…..

    If this was April 1st, I’d have to say ” good one”

    • Anni

      Let’s look at percentages here. Have you been 100% moral? If you have, and you lead any kind of life at all, I guarantee you you won’t remain so.

      • Kathy Gebhardt

        I was with one man for 20 years, married for 18 of those 20…..lost him to cancer in 2003, have not been with any man before him or since….and I still have a life..so, yes….I can say when it comes down to sticking myself in someone else’s marriage, I am 100% moral! Thanks for asking!
        Edward and Wallis were pretty much banished because of their “love” …I think the trend should continue….but that’s just me…

        • Anni

          Edward was a Nazi sympathizer. Maybe Wallis was just a good excuse to push him out. He didn’t really have to go you know. There are a lot of things in a life moral and immoral, not just sex stuff! Hundreds of immoral things have nothing to do with sex.

        • markmarkgable101@hmail.com

          Kathy I wouldn’t mind getting to know you. I am a royal supporter, single, and looking for someone similar to talk all things monarchy and maybe go visiting famous places connected with royalty. I would love to have a companion for friendship and romance.

          Maybe u could email me through the royal central website. My name is Mark I live in London.

      • Cynthia

        My parents made a point of teaching me to be 100% moral. I was always punished severely if I was anything less. So yes, other people like Camilla deserve to be punished too.

        • Anni

          Yes, proves me right. You must be a very unhappy woman. I wish you some sense of love overtaking you to cleanse you of the mean past your parents seem to have inflicted on you. Moral is something that should be gently taught with love, not by severe punishments. Bless your heart, dear.

    • Anni

      I rather doubt we’ll ever know exactly what any of the three players in those events actually did. We have pieces and bits, mushed together, not much else. Charles seemed pretty much pushed towards a virgin as a wife, too young to have a past–at least way back there in the ancient 1980′s! Diana was a 19 year old with a rotten, loveless childhood behind her, which left her with an eating disorder and lacking in self-confidence at the time of their marriage. She wasn’t ready for the life she was headed for. (Camilla had a wonderful childhood and was loved.) Diana quite forged a wonderful life that she much more enjoyed than she’d have enjoyed the one she had before the divorce, I’m pretty sure. She was loved by many, and lovely. The good that came of that marriage was William and Harry, who seem quite well-adjusted. And now we have an heir who is in a happy marriage, Like Elizabeth II, like George VI. This can only be a good thing

      • D Lee Jens-Wessler

        Umm…we have more than pieces and bits. What about “there were three of us in this marriage” do you not UNDERSTAND???????

        These two people USED another human being, and Diana paid the price with her LIFE. These two and their “happiness” came at the expense of Diana’s innocence and her LIFE, may they NEVER forget what they did. It was despicable to plot, plan and play with the emotions of a young woman whom was madly in love with her husband, her children and her country. They killed the rightful Queen to be, and there is no way on God’s green earth that the mistress should be bestowed such an honor. Actually neither of them deserve this honor.

        • Anni

          That was Diana’s opinion do you not understand that! I do despair. They were not using her, they hurt her, but they were not using her. There was no plot. If any one was using her it was those who forced Charles to marry her in the first place as he did not want to. She had long wanted to be the Princess of Wales; I rather doubt she was madly in love with him. There’s nothing about deserving and it’s not an honor. It’s a birthright.

  • Judith

    I’m easy but Prince Philip has never been seen as ‘King.’ Let Camilla be King’s consort.

    • Ricky

      That’s exactly what will happen when the Prince of Wales becomes King Charles III.

      • Anni

        Gonna be George VII

        • Cynthia

          How do you know what name Charles will take as King? Did he tell you this? This will be the first decision he will make as King, but I don’t see any reason why he would be known by anything other than the name he has been known as all his life. Especially since he now has a grandson named George, and they don’t need two Georges in the Royal Family.

          • Anni

            It is an educated guess, only. His grandfather was Albert, known in the family as Bertie, but reigned as George. Biggest majority of kings of Great Britain are Georges and Edwards. It would make much sense for George VII to be followed by William whatever number it is, to be followed by George VIII. It’s pretty typical in the historical view. We had a James, Charles, Charles, James.

          • Cynthia

            There had never been a King Albert and he picked the name George primarily because Albert was “too German” sounding and WWII was looming on the horizon. This however is the exception rather than the rule. Most English and British Kings have reigned using their first given names. Prince Charles is not in the same situation and there is no reason why he would reign as “George” or any other name than Charles. The Queen must have thought “Charles” would be a good name for a king when she named him.

          • Anni

            Her parents were rather unhappy she named her heir Charles, I’ve read that in some of the history I’ve read over the years. My guess is she put George as his fourth name, hoping he would be a George just as her beloved father was, also using his fourth name. Charles is not a great name to reign as, historically, but If he chooses it, fine by me and seriously more power to him. I’m only guessing because it’s fun for me. I like the monarchy and like to read about them. Better than some hobbies.

          • Anni

            But the first thing they are asked is what name they will reign under. It has more often than you may think been something other than the first name.

          • Anni

            Victoria’s name was Alexandrina Victoria, Edward VII’s name was Albert Edward. It is not unknown.

        • Ricky

          No, it won’t.

          Look for another Royal Central article called “What Will Charles’ Accession Be Like?” and find a link among the comments for an article that has put to rest the speculation about Prince Charles’ regnal name.

          • Anni

            Cannot really know, speculation by the rest of us cannot be put to rest, until the time comes. Though after some more reading I’ve decided he may well be Charles III. I like that as Charles I is a saint in the Anglican Church, so it would seem, and I guess he was actually quite popular in his day.

    • kkeri12

      The King’s wife has always been his consort and she has always been called ‘Queen Consort’ because she shares his rank and title, just as any other married woman would share the surname of her husband and be called Mrs. XYZ if she were the wife of Mr. XYZ. Prince Philip is not a wife, he’s a husband. He can NOT share his wife’s rank and title. He was born with the rank and title of Prince Philp of Greece, and after their marriage the Queen used Letters Patent to bestow upon Prince Philip the rank of a Prince of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth, but just as husbands do not take their wives surname, royal husbands do not share their wife’s rank and title.
      Prime example: Neither Princess Anne’s first husband Captain Mark Phillips, or her present husband Vice Admiral Sir Timothy Lawrence, has ever been called HRH, yet the wives of both of Princess Anne’s brothers were called HRH during their marriage. Bottom line: Women take on their husband’s rank and title, men do not, it is what it is.

      • Cynthia

        A sexist tradition that dates back to when a wife was little more than her husband’s property.

        • kkeri12

          Like millions of married women in the world I share my husband’s surname, and our two children have his surname as well. It’s 2014 and in no way does having his name mean we are his property. It means we’re his family!

  • Anna

    Actually Camilla Parker Bowles was Prince Charles mistress the s***Princess Consort should be her only title..I think the public will be disappointed if that cow becomes Queen Camilla

    • Anni

      Disappointment, fine. Name calling and the like–nothing at all good can come of these.

  • Michael Steven Chavez

    Really, we must stop judging people so harshly. Camilla and Charles cannot help that they love each other. Ultimately, they found their way back to each other, Diana is dead, Diana’s sons accept and respect Camilla, and she will be Queen some day.

    • Ted Duggan

      Diana is dead because she fucked another guy ….PRICK ….The Royals killed her … Go get yourself a life

  • Lilly

    Preach! Bless you! This is an amazing article!!

  • Keith

    I completely agree. The monarchy is a continuous succession. The wife of a King is a Queen, not a Princess.

  • Susie-Q

    One of the main reasons for Camilla becoming Queen should be that she makes our future King Charles HAPPY … and we all know the disaster that an unhappy king can be!

    • Anni

      Yet, Queen Victoria’s husband was Prince Consort, and the current Queen’s husband is not even that, just a Duke. So this is a gender issue I guess.

      • Ricky

        Prince Consort is one of the Duke of Edinburgh’s titles. When someone brings it up with him he usually says that he doesn’t use it because of it’s association with Prince Albert.

        It’s much the same as the Duchess of Cornwall not using the title Princess of Wales, but legally she is now the rightful holder of that title.

        • Anni

          I see, I hadn’t looked at all of his titles. Thanks for clarifying. There are other Prince Consorts in various European monarchies. But still, is it a gender issue in Britain?

    • Cynthia

      I can make him happier.

  • Anni

    The number of relentlessly ignorant, darned right stupid, undereducated and poisonously mean-spirited people in the world absolutely astound me and give me precious little hope for the future of the human race.

    • Ricky

      Anni, I feel the same way. In all the time I’ve been reading and commenting on Royal Central, I’ve never seen such mean-spirited remarks as I’m seeing on this article. We don’t have to agree with each other, but we certainly can be civil while discussing it.

      I used to read essays and comments on another site where the verbal brawling could go to shocking extremes. It got so bad that I decided to stop going there because it just upset me too much. I hope Royal Central doesn’t get so bad that I stop coming, but I’m beginning to wonder if it’s worth the aggravation.

      • Anni

        I seriously hope it can get a bit more civil. I do love the site.

  • Ted Duggan

    Face of a Cow and married to a Dick

  • Ted Duggan

    Not needed in todays age …Parasites who get money from the people they are so in love with …Yea …Also ask yourselfs one question …Are they special ? …Do they have Special Blood …. FFS we are all born equal …..Why are these parasites different to you ….PLEASE ANSWER

  • Carole Janish Wilson

    Camilla has a drinking problem that has put her in rehab twice in six months, that is a fact!! She threatened the Queen that she would blab about Charles gay romps since they’ve been married. A despicable person at best let alone a Queen. What is wrong with all of you? No one has ever respected Charles, she has him where she wants him. Odd, Prince Phillip & the Queen both wanted Will & Kate to take the throne. Don’t you wonder WHY that has all changed so quickly??

  • roger

    there is an officers code and Charles broke that when having an affair with Camilla she was another officers wife and he was married to Diana who would have been our true queen I don’t forgive or forget remember the public crying at her funeral was that true feelings or not we do seem to have very short memoires. morally the number one family should live a unblemished life and he more so as he is going to be head of the church of England so pass a generation he’s to old anyway he has no longevity pass it to the younger royals I no its not the way its done but our queen was young when she got the baton and the world respects an experienced states person but we don’t want the cart horse when we could have had a filly

    • Ricky

      Your comments remind me of some interesting historical parallels in British royal history.

      Queen Victoria’s eldest son, who became King Edward VII was a very long-serving Prince of Wales, owing to his mother’s many years on the throne. Many people had a low opinion of him and predicted a disaster when the crown came to him. He was well known to have been unfaithful to his wife, Queen Alexandra, and had several mistresses, most notably the famous Alice Keppel. I will not restate the obvious regarding her, although it is a remarkable coincidence.

      But King Edward proved them all wrong, and turned out to be a fine statesman, especially with foreign diplomacy regarding an alliance with France. His reign was a short one, lasting only nine years. But history has vindicated him very well, and his legacy was admirable, IMHO.

      You can clearly see certain similarities between King Edward VII and Prince Charles. His reign will probably be comparatively short, but might he also surprise his critics the way his great-great grandfather did? Let’s wait and see.

      • Anni

        I understand mistresses were pretty much an accepted fact of life in that era. We’ve become much more prudish about this. Alice was invited by Alexandra to sit the death vigil with her, unless I’ve been misinformed or am not remembering correctly.

        • Ricky

          I’ve read the same thing about Queen Alexandra’s invitation to Mrs. Keppel. But not having been there, I can’t say I know anything for sure!

        • kevin

          British history suggests that mistresses are fine and tolerated. Prince of Wales surely loved their mistresses. However, if I am not mistaken, no King actually married one and made her Queen. That is a tremendous threshold to cross, historically.

          • Anni

            Because mistresses were just for recreation. Wives were all about marriage politics. They weren’t allowed to marry someone they loved back then, and that was unfortunately still true when Charles was coerced into marrying Lady Diana Spencer.

          • kevin

            I might argue that is because selection of a future Queen/spouse is more than a mere amorous consideration. The symbolism and stately responsibilities are exceedingly important. The emblematic duties and responsibilities that go with being the mother of a nation, the wife of the head of The Church of England, the visible face of a nation, the diplomatic top of the food chain should warrant the selection of someone who will not cultivate political, diplomatic, religious nor nationalistic divide or animus. I think Charles’ reign is going to be negatively impacted by universal negative and controversial perceptions of his second wife/Queen, and that won’t be ideal for the nation or Commonwealth, nor the coming popularity of the Monarchy.

      • Anni

        Yes, I am enjoying the wait. It will be sad when Elizabeth passes. Charles may then be in the same place she is now–oldest still in the job and needing a lot of help, by the time he ascends. If so William gets to shift into the kind of role Charles is doing now. They are healthy and tend toward long-lived. I suspect he will be successful and he’s getting loads of practice.

    • Anni

      Makes Her Majesty certainly too old, doesn’t that!

  • Justine Mee

    The facts are the facts, please stop being an arse kisser. She was a pig who could not keep her legs closed when the ring went on Diana’s finger and not her own. Bottom line no matter what the circumstances it does not justify sleeping with another woman’s husband and cheating on your own. She is a moraless, unscrupulous guttersnipe. The minute he was married she should have backed away, and he is as much of a sleaze for using a naive girl as a brood mare. They deserve each other. Whom needs to grow up is you. The one who thinks adultery, and marriage under false pretenses is acceptable if the excuse is right! It’s called “being an adult”, which clearly neither one of them were. The idea you would even entertain an excuse for them is disgusting at best, and disturbing at worst. Never mind pathetic and disrespectful to the memory of a mother of a future king.

  • Caroline 1953

    I don’t think Charles and Camilla were perfect but I don’t think Diana was any more perfect. She was manipulative and enjoyed the limelight and, yes, she did deliberately upstaged Prince Charles. We don’t know what went on in the marriage so how can we judge? How many people on here also committed adultery or have been unkind? All guilty probably. Let’s move on. About the title, there is no reason why she should not been Queen but I think the titles should be made the same so that either the wife of the King becomes a Princess Consort or the husband of a Queen in her own right becomes King Consort. There should not be a difference as there is at the moment.

    • Anni

      She was known to contact the press to let them know when she was taking the boys someplace fun they could be photographed. They all have/had issues. By golly, just really human beings after all. What a relief to me. I love them all.

      • Greg

        Wasn’t it proven that Diana was equally unfaithful to Charles? I mean there have been questions about who Harry’s father is (before everyone starts i know the dates don’t line right up). It would appear that Charles and Diana were simply a toxic couple. They both cheated… get over it.

        • Anni

          Good point. And if one really looks at Harry, he’s so Charles in the eyes and nose and Diana’s sister Sarah elsewhere. Hard to miss for anyone with an eye for sketching and painting; who cares about dates.

  • Marie

    Yes, she has been misjudged. Charles and Diana were not meant to be and they were both in a sad situation. Charles loves her and her step sons love her. She has had more balanced opinions of her written. She works to help causes she believes in and has been loyal. We need to not hold her responsible for what happened. We need to move on and let the family be happy.

    • Anni

      Yes! Rational and Loving. Both things in somewhat short supply too often. Living in the past, holding grudges, these things are sad.

  • Jennifer Clark

    What a kerfuffle over naught. When the Prince of Wales accedes the throne, his wife will be Queen Consort. If the King and Queen choose not to use her legal title, so be it. Royal titles are not subject to popularity polls.

    Regarding the Camilla vs Diana battle, I have this observation to make: Charles is now happy. His two sons reportedly approve and are happy to see their father happy. Her Majesty also appears to approve of and enjoy the company of the Duchess of Cornwall. Who are any of us to judge the merits or deficits of the Prince’s marriages? If one is looking to assign blame, let’s look to Prince Phillip, who told Charles Camilla wouldn’t do, then insisted Charles marry the sweet, naive Diana, a lady with whom Charles had no shared interests or anything in common.

    Let’s move on, shall we?

    • Anni

      Very well said!

      • Jennifer Clark

        Thank you.

        • Anni

          Thank you. Some sanity and clearly presented thoughts added to this conversation.

  • Connie Stannard Lewis

    my biggest annoyance is that Charles was ab le to get away with Spouse abuse!

    • Anni

      Of what do you speak?

      • Connie Stannard Lewis

        the verbal and mental abuse!

        • Anni

          My understanding is she gave back as good as she got.

          • Anni

            And he suffered her tantrums, screaming and shouting fits in silence. A true gentleman. She wasn’t much of a lady in those days. Though I’ll give her that she quite became one once she matured a bit and got out of the situation. That marriage being over was the best thing for every one concerned.

          • Cynthia

            How do you know this? Were you there? Does bashing Diana make YOU feel good?

  • Kevin

    But if tradition and precedent is the going argument in her favor as a future Queen, should she not also have been found to be a virgin before marital consideration, and not be a woman with a former husband, who is still living no less, and with biological offspring of her own, predating marriage?! Has this EVER happened in English history? Where is the precedent for such a Queen? What role will be accorded to her children within the “Royal” family. All legitimate questions.

    • Jennifer Clark

      Of course it has. There is nothing new under the sun. Edward IV married Elizabeth Woodville, a English widow with two sons. And a Lancastrian widow, to boot. Caused quite the scandal, and pushed Warwick the Kingmaker into the arms (politically speaking) of the King of France and Margarite d’Anjou.

      • Cynthia

        Let’s all accuse Camilla being a witch and make her life just as difficult as Queen Elizabeth’s. At least Elizabeth’s first husband was DEAD.

        • Jennifer Clark

          My, that was rather snarky. Yes, Sir John Grey was dead. Fighting for the losing side. Elizabeth set out to improve her, and her sons’, position by ensnaring the King. Worked out fairly well, too. Charles and Camilla were an item before Lady Diana Spenser ever entered the picture. This entire scenario is due to people clinging to outmoded ideas. Instead of advising his son to marry a woman he loved, and would assist and support him, Prince Philip wanted Charles to marry an aristocratic virgin. And we see how well *that* worked out. And luckily, accusing a female opponent of being a witch is no longer an effective tactic.

  • JJ Jones

    There actually would be no act of Parliament or any action needed by the government concerning the consort title were she to decide to take the title Queen, Princess Consort or Snuggles the Big Haired one- the Monarchy (Currently HM the Queen, at that time it you be Charles the King) is the Fount of Honor, with means that titles are at the personal discretion and do NOT have to be approved by the Government. The only government role in titles is for example, in 1953 they changed the title of the Queen to Of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but that was because they changed the name of the nation as a whole. The Duke of Edinburgh gave up his titles before marriage, and George VI gave him back the HRH and the DoE title, the Queen then once again gave him the title of “Prince” back allowing him to once again be Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh. Just as she allowed her aunts to go by the title of Princess Alice and Princess Marina, even though they were by marriage (Marina was entitled to be called “Princess” since that is what she was born as was Princess of Greece and Denmark, Alice however was not but was given that name) the only legal effect that has to take place with a title is for the Queen to issue the Letters Patent, which notifies the people that the title has been issued, or in the case of Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah, Duchess of York, changed or downgraded. No legality involeved

  • roger

    but when our queen was put on the throne she was young and has done a good job its a life job with no reprieve . but Camilla is a divorcee . and no I don’t hate her I have never met her but I don’t like the underhand affair she had I have strict rules on marriage and that’s one man one woman

  • nmfd72

    I agree with your assessment

  • Karim Sadrudin Juma

    I would be very happy to see His Royal Highness Prince Charles of Wales become King after the passing of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. As to Her Royal Duchess of Cornwall , Camilla Parker Bowles becoming Queen is Suitable. Reason is because it would be a balanced Monarch for Great Britain, Common Wealth, and Defender of the Faith. It would be shameful for calling His Royal Highness Prince Charles of Wales, King and calling the Duchess of Cornwall would suit to reduce in Public Eyes of a Lower Tittle. She has been self sacrificing since her Marriage of Royal Duties from the beginning of their Marriage. She has performed so many Royal Duties with His Royal Highness Prince Charles of Wales for the Monarchy and that would fit the British Royal Family.