Camilla apparently leaning into “The Queen” title

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Camilla hasn't made one false step since she became a public person. Charles and Camila are happy and she was crowned Queen, not queen consort, and she is doing a bang up job.

Um yes she has, they didn’t return the STOLEN JEWELS and instead flaunted them at the coronation, which spared no expense for the British public, and was an environmental strain in many ways

Then she did everything right.

Being a hypocrite is doing things right? They’ve been talking about “slimming down” the monarchy and paying more mind to how much expense the public bears, they’ve been yapping about cultural restoration and sensitivity, Charles has yammered on about giving a crap about the environment for decades. And then it’s go time and they’re like just kidding, pay for us to wear stolen jewels and who gives a fig about the planet.

Like you being a hypocrite. Why are you using a device? Which harms the planet.
Where are you living? On stolen property.

I acknowledge that. But you know who pays for my house? Me. Not taxpayers; me.

You saying you acknowledge your hypocrisy doesn’t give you a pass.

And where do YOU live?

In my house while I don’t whine about others living with stolen property like you hypocritically do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Camilla hasn't made one false step since she became a public person. Charles and Camila are happy and she was crowned Queen, not queen consort, and she is doing a bang up job.

Um yes she has, they didn’t return the STOLEN JEWELS and instead flaunted them at the coronation, which spared no expense for the British public, and was an environmental strain in many ways

Then she did everything right.

Being a hypocrite is doing things right? They’ve been talking about “slimming down” the monarchy and paying more mind to how much expense the public bears, they’ve been yapping about cultural restoration and sensitivity, Charles has yammered on about giving a crap about the environment for decades. And then it’s go time and they’re like just kidding, pay for us to wear stolen jewels and who gives a fig about the planet.

Like you being a hypocrite. Why are you using a device? Which harms the planet.
Where are you living? On stolen property.

I acknowledge that. But you know who pays for my house? Me. Not taxpayers; me.

He is also bringing in more money by to the country by his role than you ever would.

Not really. People want to see the ancient, historic artifacts and more modern sites that he had zero to do with. He didn’t build the Tower. He didn’t build Big Ben, or Hever Castle, or the Heath. He didn’t build Hampton Court.

People can look at other sites. That doesn’t mean they don’t visit royal sites as well.
There is no correlation between Charles not building Big Ben, etc to tourism.
You make no sense whatsoever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Camilla hasn't made one false step since she became a public person. Charles and Camila are happy and she was crowned Queen, not queen consort, and she is doing a bang up job.

Um yes she has, they didn’t return the STOLEN JEWELS and instead flaunted them at the coronation, which spared no expense for the British public, and was an environmental strain in many ways

Then she did everything right.

Being a hypocrite is doing things right? They’ve been talking about “slimming down” the monarchy and paying more mind to how much expense the public bears, they’ve been yapping about cultural restoration and sensitivity, Charles has yammered on about giving a crap about the environment for decades. And then it’s go time and they’re like just kidding, pay for us to wear stolen jewels and who gives a fig about the planet.

Like you being a hypocrite. Why are you using a device? Which harms the planet.
Where are you living? On stolen property.

I acknowledge that. But you know who pays for my house? Me. Not taxpayers; me.

He is also bringing in more money by to the country by his role than you ever would.

His country is in a recession. Maybe they should try another strategy instead of relying heavily on tourism when the rest of the world is increasingly disinterested?

I love the drama going on right now, but have no desire to stand outside buckingham palace.

The tourism from the brf would be helpful from the recession. It is not the cause of the recession and would be needed moreso. You’ve only served to provide reason why the monarch is important to the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And? She's Her Majesty the Queen. That's what she's called.

Queen Elizabeth said she shouldn’t be Queen. Charles made her queen. Charles’s dad wasn’t king. Same thing.

She is, and always has been, his queen. She’s had to endure a lifetime of bs - I think this is lovely and sweet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Camilla hasn't made one false step since she became a public person. Charles and Camila are happy and she was crowned Queen, not queen consort, and she is doing a bang up job.

Um yes she has, they didn’t return the STOLEN JEWELS and instead flaunted them at the coronation, which spared no expense for the British public, and was an environmental strain in many ways

Then she did everything right.

Being a hypocrite is doing things right? They’ve been talking about “slimming down” the monarchy and paying more mind to how much expense the public bears, they’ve been yapping about cultural restoration and sensitivity, Charles has yammered on about giving a crap about the environment for decades. And then it’s go time and they’re like just kidding, pay for us to wear stolen jewels and who gives a fig about the planet.

Like you being a hypocrite. Why are you using a device? Which harms the planet.
Where are you living? On stolen property.

I acknowledge that. But you know who pays for my house? Me. Not taxpayers; me.

You saying you acknowledge your hypocrisy doesn’t give you a pass.

And where do YOU live?

On stolen land, just like you, except you criticize others for it while you think it’s only okay for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And? She's Her Majesty the Queen. That's what she's called.

Queen Elizabeth said she shouldn’t be Queen. Charles made her queen. Charles’s dad wasn’t king. Same thing.

I believe queen Elizabeth gave the go ahead later.

Nope. Once she died, Charles was like "I'm king, she's dead, Camilla is queen now." It's sort of the whole thing with being the monarch-- you get to do what you want.

You’re wrong. In 2022, Elizabeth gave her blessing. This was announced on the bbc and there are plenty of other sources to find this information.

Her blessing was for “Queen Consort”
https://nypost.com/2022/02/05/queen-elizabeth-backs-camilla-as-queen-consort/?_ga=2.233957406.1269693147.1655718344-225148805.1606918943

Does that automatically confer “Queen” status upon Charles’s coronation?

The fact that Charles decided to give her the title of Queen is what matters. Elizabeth doesn't control what titles the royal family uses after she dies. She's still a queen consort in the sense that's not a queen regnant, but the title is up to Charles now, not Elizabeth.

With this I absolutely agree - it's Charles's decision for better or worse.

My question is about the mechanics of the "Queen Consort" title granted by QEII. Does it automatically convert to "Queen" once Charles is coronated? If so, then QEII was implicitly acknowledging that she approved the use of "Queen" by assigning "Queen Consort" to Camilla.

I'm not sure there's an answer, because historically the use of "Queen Consort" as a title is pretty rare; most British Queens have been Queens Consort, but they're just called Queen. Consort just describes the type of queen they are. Queen Elizabeth II wasn't titled "Queen Regnant," she was just Queen. Her mother wasn't titled Queen Consort, she was was just the Queen.

(The husbands of Queens Regnant is a different matter, because of the fact that king as a title traditionally outranks queen. They're typically called princes for that reason, but even Phillip wasn't titled as Prince Consort, he was just "His Royal Highness The Prince Philip."

Interesting! Thanks for this. Think I’ve now stared at the word “Queen” so many times it’s looking weird to me

[Anonymous]

This seems like a silly conversation for a bunch of Americans to be having.

I lived in the UK for several years while DH worked for a US government office there. We were told in no uncertain terms (by his agency) that it would be inappropriate for us to give our opinions of the royal family and weigh in about any other British government-related matters. Because we were guests, sure, but also because the BRF really has nothing to do with us.

So here on this thread, I can't help thinking it is a matter of opinions being like arseholes: everybody has one (and none of ours matters to the BRF).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This seems like a silly conversation for a bunch of Americans to be having.

I lived in the UK for several years while DH worked for a US government office there. We were told in no uncertain terms (by his agency) that it would be inappropriate for us to give our opinions of the royal family and weigh in about any other British government-related matters. Because we were guests, sure, but also because the BRF really has nothing to do with us.

So here on this thread, I can't help thinking it is a matter of opinions being like arseholes: everybody has one (and none of ours matters to the BRF).

Lady we are not diplomats here. We're gossiping. No one cares what your husband's boss told him you should or shouldn't say about the BRF. Good Lord.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Team Diana

Yup. Just can't get behind Camilla. Sorry not sorry.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems like a silly conversation for a bunch of Americans to be having.

I lived in the UK for several years while DH worked for a US government office there. We were told in no uncertain terms (by his agency) that it would be inappropriate for us to give our opinions of the royal family and weigh in about any other British government-related matters. Because we were guests, sure, but also because the BRF really has nothing to do with us.

So here on this thread, I can't help thinking it is a matter of opinions being like arseholes: everybody has one (and none of ours matters to the BRF).

Lady we are not diplomats here. We're gossiping. No one cares what your husband's boss told him you should or shouldn't say about the BRF. Good Lord.

You don't see how foolish and pointless this gossip is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems like a silly conversation for a bunch of Americans to be having.

I lived in the UK for several years while DH worked for a US government office there. We were told in no uncertain terms (by his agency) that it would be inappropriate for us to give our opinions of the royal family and weigh in about any other British government-related matters. Because we were guests, sure, but also because the BRF really has nothing to do with us.

So here on this thread, I can't help thinking it is a matter of opinions being like arseholes: everybody has one (and none of ours matters to the BRF).

Lady we are not diplomats here. We're gossiping. No one cares what your husband's boss told him you should or shouldn't say about the BRF. Good Lord.

You don't see how foolish and pointless this gossip is?

Because really, I don't see how any principle other than "opinions are like arseholes: everyone has one" is operating here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think it was kinder that Diana did not live to see all this.

Not for her sons and grandchildren! Diana would have still been a force in the monarch as mother/grandmother to heirs of the throne. Imagine how things would have played out for Meghan & Kate to have Diana as their MIL. So sad she missed out on happier decades to come.

She would have brought more peace to family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And? She's Her Majesty the Queen. That's what she's called.

Queen Elizabeth said she shouldn’t be Queen. Charles made her queen. Charles’s dad wasn’t king. Same thing.

I believe queen Elizabeth gave the go ahead later.

Nope. Once she died, Charles was like "I'm king, she's dead, Camilla is queen now." It's sort of the whole thing with being the monarch-- you get to do what you want.

You’re wrong. In 2022, Elizabeth gave her blessing. This was announced on the bbc and there are plenty of other sources to find this information.

Her blessing was for “Queen Consort”
https://nypost.com/2022/02/05/queen-elizabeth-backs-camilla-as-queen-consort/?_ga=2.233957406.1269693147.1655718344-225148805.1606918943

Does that automatically confer “Queen” status upon Charles’s coronation?

The fact that Charles decided to give her the title of Queen is what matters. Elizabeth doesn't control what titles the royal family uses after she dies. She's still a queen consort in the sense that's not a queen regnant, but the title is up to Charles now, not Elizabeth.

With this I absolutely agree - it's Charles's decision for better or worse.

My question is about the mechanics of the "Queen Consort" title granted by QEII. Does it automatically convert to "Queen" once Charles is coronated? If so, then QEII was implicitly acknowledging that she approved the use of "Queen" by assigning "Queen Consort" to Camilla.

I'm not sure there's an answer, because historically the use of "Queen Consort" as a title is pretty rare; most British Queens have been Queens Consort, but they're just called Queen. Consort just describes the type of queen they are. Queen Elizabeth II wasn't titled "Queen Regnant," she was just Queen. Her mother wasn't titled Queen Consort, she was was just the Queen.

(The husbands of Queens Regnant is a different matter, because of the fact that king as a title traditionally outranks queen. They're typically called princes for that reason, but even Phillip wasn't titled as Prince Consort, he was just "His Royal Highness The Prince Philip."

I can only speak to the way it was reported in the British press, but when QEII announced that she was blessing the "Queen Consort" title, this was seen as both a kindness and a rebuke.

A kindness because there was a loooooong time, both before and after Charles and Camilla marrying, when people questioned whether Camilla would ever get anything resembling a "queen" title, due to to complications with Charles' divorce from Diana and the circumstances under which he wed Camilla. The divorce was a huge deal, and it took a long time to grant because both the family and the government recalled that, oh hey, divorce was the reason the Duke of Windsor abdicated the throne. So to have the heir divorce and remarry was a HUGE deal. And then when Charles and Camilla married, their wedding vows literally included a section where they had to publicly atone for their affair and the fact that it destroyed Charles' marriage to Diana, who was the one who was "selected" (both by the Queen's approval and by the government's agreement) to be the future queen. So it was not a give that QEII would ever give her blessing for Camilla to be styled Queen Consort. They might have forced a title like Philip's on her, even though the reasoning would have been different.

So when QEII said in 2022 that Camilla would be Queen Consort, it was viewed as QEII consenting to give Camilla some kind of queen title, a big deal, but also people noted that she was specific that it was Queen *Consort*, not queen. And this was viewed as a bit of a rebuke, akin to the special vows Charles and Camilla had to do, to show that Camilla was NOT the chosen queen, she was not mother to the heir, and she would not have the same status as Diana would have had if they had not divorced and Diana had not been killed.

I mean, yeah, it all seems silly. It is. But the way that announcement was made and reported on, it seemed pretty clear that QEII was saying okay, Camilla can be a kind of queen but it needs to be clear that she's a different kind of queen than someone who married the heir and bore his children, with no divorce and affair, because we actually have all these very specific rules about this stuff thanks to the Church of England and the unique role the monarchy plays in British government and society since Henry VIII.

So it is kind of a big deal that Camilla is just going by "The Queen" now, at least based on how most people interpret QEII's announcement about the title Queen Consort.

Great post. I totally forgot about all the context when QEII assigned the "Queen Consort" title!

Since when has a monarch ruled with every decision guided by what the previous monarch wanted? It's one of the perks of being monarch, you get to make the rules.

This is true, and many people speculated that once QEII died and he became king, Charles would get rid of "Consort" and make Camilla just "the Queen." And he did, which is within his rights.

However, the reasoning behind QEII settling on "Queen Consort" to grant her blessing too, and likely the reason it took her time to come around to even allowing Charles and Camilla to get married, is that the British Royal Family has a dicy (at best) history with monarchs divorcing and remarrying, and the impact it has in particular on the line of succession. The last time it happened, it was a whole crisis that threatened the crown fundamentally, and that was in an era when the monarch was actually the ruler of Britain and had a freaking army at their disposal.

So yes, on the one hand, Charles is king and on this specific point he can do what he wants. On the other hand, he is also subject to a bunch of norms and expectations put in place by the British government and the Church of England, and he doesn't actually have absolute power like the British monarchs once had. QEII was and is enormously popular, and one thing she had that Charles does not have was a lot of faith in her judgment on what was right and appropriate. And even that had to be earned over the course of decades.

Not sure this is going over so great, though things may be so chaotic with the royals right now that people don't have the energy to get worked up about it. But there are people who notice and don't love it.

Camilla's popularity is only growing. Not many people are too worried that a few Diana crazies will never come around.

DP. Diana crazies? When you compare Camilla to any of the other Queens in other European royal families she’s very drab, ugly, and unaccomplished.

Compared to most other European royal families, the mistress is hid away and never is never seen in public. Nevermind actually ascending to the level of Queen!

Diana is dead. Why should Camilla not live her life?

Camilla always lived her life even before Diana died. Camilla was a mistress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Camilla hasn't made one false step since she became a public person. Charles and Camila are happy and she was crowned Queen, not queen consort, and she is doing a bang up job.

Um yes she has, they didn’t return the STOLEN JEWELS and instead flaunted them at the coronation, which spared no expense for the British public, and was an environmental strain in many ways

Then she did everything right.

Being a hypocrite is doing things right? They’ve been talking about “slimming down” the monarchy and paying more mind to how much expense the public bears, they’ve been yapping about cultural restoration and sensitivity, Charles has yammered on about giving a crap about the environment for decades. And then it’s go time and they’re like just kidding, pay for us to wear stolen jewels and who gives a fig about the planet.

Like you being a hypocrite. Why are you using a device? Which harms the planet.
Where are you living? On stolen property.

I acknowledge that. But you know who pays for my house? Me. Not taxpayers; me.

He is also bringing in more money by to the country by his role than you ever would.

Not really. People want to see the ancient, historic artifacts and more modern sites that he had zero to do with. He didn’t build the Tower. He didn’t build Big Ben, or Hever Castle, or the Heath. He didn’t build Hampton Court.

People can look at other sites. That doesn’t mean they don’t visit royal sites as well.
There is no correlation between Charles not building Big Ben, etc to tourism.
You make no sense whatsoever.

nit pick : Big Ben was cast not built.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And? She's Her Majesty the Queen. That's what she's called.

Queen Elizabeth said she shouldn’t be Queen. Charles made her queen. Charles’s dad wasn’t king. Same thing.

I believe queen Elizabeth gave the go ahead later.

She did. Camilla has been “the Queen” (not consort) for sometime now.

No she didn't. QEII said Camilla would be queen consort in 2022 before she died (like 7 months before she died). There was a public announcement. At QEII's funeral events, Camilla was queen consort, as QEII wished. It was not until the coronation that Charles decided to drop the "consort" and the invitations to the coronation had her as just the queen. That was a decision Charles made AFTER QEII's death (which he can make and wasn't that surprising).

QEII did not "give the go ahead" on Camilla being queen and made it pretty clear that she wanted/expected Camilla to be styled as queen consort when Charles ascended to the throne. But all she could do was make her wishes known -- Philip wasn't even around to impose familial pressure to follow QEII's wishes, and Charles did as he pleased.

It's good to be The King

She will always officially be Queen Consort no matter what is written.

And even though Kate is called Princess, she is not. You can only be born a princess. Her official title is Princess William of Wales but usually goes by the less formal, Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge.