The Queen Consort

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one is going to pay them any more attention now than they ever did. They are boring and uneventful. All eyes will remain on W&K.

Certainly there will be a lot of eyes on Charles and Camilla during his coronation.

William will probably be an old man before he has a chance to be King.

Hopefully I will live to see the reign of King George. (I think their should be limits to how long they reign. Charles should step down at 80 and William at 70, George would be 39 then.)

No limits, like the Supreme court justices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was about five when Charles and Diana married and in college when she died. I was always confused by the love for her.
Obviously the Camilla stuff was humiliating because it was so public but faithful love marriages are exceptionally rare among royal couples.
Anyone who thinks that Diana would have “loved Charles forever” is an utter moron. She didn’t love him and wasn’t expected to.
Frankly, the royal family made a terrible choice with her. She was unfit for such a public role. Aside from being able to birth an heir, the most important thing should be thick skin. The woman couldn’t even hold her head up, for heavens sake. I don’t know what the royal family was thinking.

But that’s kind of what’s so detestable to me. If Charles wanted someone who would silently accept his affairs step one is don’t marry a 19 year old virgin. Like he really could’ve married someone that got to experience the world the way that he had or at least someone with a fully matured brain but just felt entitled to sow his wild oats into his thirties and then marry someone who is too young to have done the same.

Blame the queen for this, because she was the one who required that he marry a virgin.

The Queen was a bad queen and a bad mother. I never will understand why people admire this woman.

You’re applying modern standards and not considering the unique circumstances of her upbringing.

The unique circumstances of her upbringing, as has now been demonstrated many times over, were terrible for children.

She was a bad mother. She openly disliked Charles and doted on Andrew.

Do you not understand history? You can not go back and judge women by today's standards. For example, my SIL complained that her mom never saw her play lacrosse games ( in the 80's) but, parents were not encouraged to go to practices or even games really. So, I thought it unfair to judge her mom for not being there.

The Queen was raising the two elder children based on the Victorian era and was also Queen. You know duty before family. So you are being very simple in describing her as a "bad mother" She wasn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was about five when Charles and Diana married and in college when she died. I was always confused by the love for her.
Obviously the Camilla stuff was humiliating because it was so public but faithful love marriages are exceptionally rare among royal couples.
Anyone who thinks that Diana would have “loved Charles forever” is an utter moron. She didn’t love him and wasn’t expected to.
Frankly, the royal family made a terrible choice with her. She was unfit for such a public role. Aside from being able to birth an heir, the most important thing should be thick skin. The woman couldn’t even hold her head up, for heavens sake. I don’t know what the royal family was thinking.

But that’s kind of what’s so detestable to me. If Charles wanted someone who would silently accept his affairs step one is don’t marry a 19 year old virgin. Like he really could’ve married someone that got to experience the world the way that he had or at least someone with a fully matured brain but just felt entitled to sow his wild oats into his thirties and then marry someone who is too young to have done the same.

Blame the queen for this, because she was the one who required that he marry a virgin.

The Queen was a bad queen and a bad mother. I never will understand why people admire this woman.

You’re applying modern standards and not considering the unique circumstances of her upbringing.

The unique circumstances of her upbringing, as has now been demonstrated many times over, were terrible for children.

She was a bad mother. She openly disliked Charles and doted on Andrew.

Do you not understand history? You can not go back and judge women by today's standards. For example, my SIL complained that her mom never saw her play lacrosse games ( in the 80's) but, parents were not encouraged to go to practices or even games really. So, I thought it unfair to judge her mom for not being there.

The Queen was raising the two elder children based on the Victorian era and was also Queen. You know duty before family. So you are being very simple in describing her as a "bad mother" She wasn't.

Based on her two eldest sons behavior, bad mom. The only one not divorced is the youngest

[Anonymous]

I don’t believe the majority of English want Camilla to be called Queen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t believe the majority of English want Camilla to be called Queen.

You are correct. 20% of people in the UK (which you may not know includes England) wanted her to be called Queen Consort, and 39% wanted her to be called Princess Consort. One way or another, the majority of those polled wanted her to have a title with "consort" as part of it.

[Anonymous]

Unlike Queen Elizabeth, who inherited the throne from her father, Queen Consort Camilla can never take the throne, since she joined the royal family through marriage. However, colloquially, the Queen Consort is referred to as the Queen as well.

When Charles dies, William is King.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was about five when Charles and Diana married and in college when she died. I was always confused by the love for her.
Obviously the Camilla stuff was humiliating because it was so public but faithful love marriages are exceptionally rare among royal couples.
Anyone who thinks that Diana would have “loved Charles forever” is an utter moron. She didn’t love him and wasn’t expected to.
Frankly, the royal family made a terrible choice with her. She was unfit for such a public role. Aside from being able to birth an heir, the most important thing should be thick skin. The woman couldn’t even hold her head up, for heavens sake. I don’t know what the royal family was thinking.

But that’s kind of what’s so detestable to me. If Charles wanted someone who would silently accept his affairs step one is don’t marry a 19 year old virgin. Like he really could’ve married someone that got to experience the world the way that he had or at least someone with a fully matured brain but just felt entitled to sow his wild oats into his thirties and then marry someone who is too young to have done the same.

Blame the queen for this, because she was the one who required that he marry a virgin.

The Queen was a bad queen and a bad mother. I never will understand why people admire this woman.

You’re applying modern standards and not considering the unique circumstances of her upbringing.

The unique circumstances of her upbringing, as has now been demonstrated many times over, were terrible for children.

She was a bad mother. She openly disliked Charles and doted on Andrew.

Do you not understand history? You can not go back and judge women by today's standards. For example, my SIL complained that her mom never saw her play lacrosse games ( in the 80's) but, parents were not encouraged to go to practices or even games really. So, I thought it unfair to judge her mom for not being there.

The Queen was raising the two elder children based on the Victorian era and was also Queen. You know duty before family. So you are being very simple in describing her as a "bad mother" She wasn't.

Such bullsh@t. My parents came to all of our soccer games in the 70s/80s and the sideline was filled with all my teammates’ parents. I still remember the parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t believe the majority of English want Camilla to be called Queen.

You are correct. 20% of people in the UK (which you may not know includes England) wanted her to be called Queen Consort, and 39% wanted her to be called Princess Consort. One way or another, the majority of those polled wanted her to have a title with "consort" as part of it.

The consort (the spouse of the monarch) is NEVER called “consort” in their title. It is simply a designation to clarify who is the sovereign (King Regnant) and who is the spouse (Queen consort.) Elizabeth the Queen Mother was also the Queen Consort as her husband was the Sovereign. But she wasn’t called Queen Consort Elizabeth. She was called Queen Elizabeth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was about five when Charles and Diana married and in college when she died. I was always confused by the love for her.
Obviously the Camilla stuff was humiliating because it was so public but faithful love marriages are exceptionally rare among royal couples.
Anyone who thinks that Diana would have “loved Charles forever” is an utter moron. She didn’t love him and wasn’t expected to.
Frankly, the royal family made a terrible choice with her. She was unfit for such a public role. Aside from being able to birth an heir, the most important thing should be thick skin. The woman couldn’t even hold her head up, for heavens sake. I don’t know what the royal family was thinking.

But that’s kind of what’s so detestable to me. If Charles wanted someone who would silently accept his affairs step one is don’t marry a 19 year old virgin. Like he really could’ve married someone that got to experience the world the way that he had or at least someone with a fully matured brain but just felt entitled to sow his wild oats into his thirties and then marry someone who is too young to have done the same.

Blame the queen for this, because she was the one who required that he marry a virgin.

The Queen was a bad queen and a bad mother. I never will understand why people admire this woman.

You’re applying modern standards and not considering the unique circumstances of her upbringing.

The unique circumstances of her upbringing, as has now been demonstrated many times over, were terrible for children.

She was a bad mother. She openly disliked Charles and doted on Andrew.

Do you not understand history? You can not go back and judge women by today's standards. For example, my SIL complained that her mom never saw her play lacrosse games ( in the 80's) but, parents were not encouraged to go to practices or even games really. So, I thought it unfair to judge her mom for not being there.

The Queen was raising the two elder children based on the Victorian era and was also Queen. You know duty before family. So you are being very simple in describing her as a "bad mother" She wasn't.

Such bullsh@t. My parents came to all of our soccer games in the 70s/80s and the sideline was filled with all my teammates’ parents. I still remember the parents.

Did you grow up in extreme wealth in an aristocratic British Family? If not this doesn’t concern you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was about five when Charles and Diana married and in college when she died. I was always confused by the love for her.
Obviously the Camilla stuff was humiliating because it was so public but faithful love marriages are exceptionally rare among royal couples.
Anyone who thinks that Diana would have “loved Charles forever” is an utter moron. She didn’t love him and wasn’t expected to.
Frankly, the royal family made a terrible choice with her. She was unfit for such a public role. Aside from being able to birth an heir, the most important thing should be thick skin. The woman couldn’t even hold her head up, for heavens sake. I don’t know what the royal family was thinking.

But that’s kind of what’s so detestable to me. If Charles wanted someone who would silently accept his affairs step one is don’t marry a 19 year old virgin. Like he really could’ve married someone that got to experience the world the way that he had or at least someone with a fully matured brain but just felt entitled to sow his wild oats into his thirties and then marry someone who is too young to have done the same.

Blame the queen for this, because she was the one who required that he marry a virgin.

The Queen was a bad queen and a bad mother. I never will understand why people admire this woman.

You’re applying modern standards and not considering the unique circumstances of her upbringing.

The unique circumstances of her upbringing, as has now been demonstrated many times over, were terrible for children.

She was a bad mother. She openly disliked Charles and doted on Andrew.

Do you not understand history? You can not go back and judge women by today's standards. For example, my SIL complained that her mom never saw her play lacrosse games ( in the 80's) but, parents were not encouraged to go to practices or even games really. So, I thought it unfair to judge her mom for not being there.

The Queen was raising the two elder children based on the Victorian era and was also Queen. You know duty before family. So you are being very simple in describing her as a "bad mother" She wasn't.

You’re completely nuts. I grew up in the 70s and 80s. Parents went to their kids sports games. Not obsessively like now, not every minute of every practice, but most parents made an effort to go to most of the games. Stop rewriting history and gaslighting your friend in her justifiable sense of neglect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unlike Queen Elizabeth, who inherited the throne from her father, Queen Consort Camilla can never take the throne, since she joined the royal family through marriage. However, colloquially, the Queen Consort is referred to as the Queen as well.

When Charles dies, William is King.

+1

She will never be a Queen. She may be called it, but will never serve as one. She’s not in the bloodline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was about five when Charles and Diana married and in college when she died. I was always confused by the love for her.
Obviously the Camilla stuff was humiliating because it was so public but faithful love marriages are exceptionally rare among royal couples.
Anyone who thinks that Diana would have “loved Charles forever” is an utter moron. She didn’t love him and wasn’t expected to.
Frankly, the royal family made a terrible choice with her. She was unfit for such a public role. Aside from being able to birth an heir, the most important thing should be thick skin. The woman couldn’t even hold her head up, for heavens sake. I don’t know what the royal family was thinking.

But that’s kind of what’s so detestable to me. If Charles wanted someone who would silently accept his affairs step one is don’t marry a 19 year old virgin. Like he really could’ve married someone that got to experience the world the way that he had or at least someone with a fully matured brain but just felt entitled to sow his wild oats into his thirties and then marry someone who is too young to have done the same.

Blame the queen for this, because she was the one who required that he marry a virgin.

The Queen was a bad queen and a bad mother. I never will understand why people admire this woman.

You’re applying modern standards and not considering the unique circumstances of her upbringing.

The unique circumstances of her upbringing, as has now been demonstrated many times over, were terrible for children.

She was a bad mother. She openly disliked Charles and doted on Andrew.

Do you not understand history? You can not go back and judge women by today's standards. For example, my SIL complained that her mom never saw her play lacrosse games ( in the 80's) but, parents were not encouraged to go to practices or even games really. So, I thought it unfair to judge her mom for not being there.

The Queen was raising the two elder children based on the Victorian era and was also Queen. You know duty before family. So you are being very simple in describing her as a "bad mother" She wasn't.

You’re completely nuts. I grew up in the 70s and 80s. Parents went to their kids sports games. Not obsessively like now, not every minute of every practice, but most parents made an effort to go to most of the games. Stop rewriting history and gaslighting your friend in her justifiable sense of neglect.

Yep. This is why Elizabeth and not her mother became the head of monarchy after her father died. The same will happen to Catherine when William dies, George will become king.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was about five when Charles and Diana married and in college when she died. I was always confused by the love for her.
Obviously the Camilla stuff was humiliating because it was so public but faithful love marriages are exceptionally rare among royal couples.
Anyone who thinks that Diana would have “loved Charles forever” is an utter moron. She didn’t love him and wasn’t expected to.
Frankly, the royal family made a terrible choice with her. She was unfit for such a public role. Aside from being able to birth an heir, the most important thing should be thick skin. The woman couldn’t even hold her head up, for heavens sake. I don’t know what the royal family was thinking.

But that’s kind of what’s so detestable to me. If Charles wanted someone who would silently accept his affairs step one is don’t marry a 19 year old virgin. Like he really could’ve married someone that got to experience the world the way that he had or at least someone with a fully matured brain but just felt entitled to sow his wild oats into his thirties and then marry someone who is too young to have done the same.

Blame the queen for this, because she was the one who required that he marry a virgin.

The Queen was a bad queen and a bad mother. I never will understand why people admire this woman.

You’re applying modern standards and not considering the unique circumstances of her upbringing.

The unique circumstances of her upbringing, as has now been demonstrated many times over, were terrible for children.

She was a bad mother. She openly disliked Charles and doted on Andrew.

Do you not understand history? You can not go back and judge women by today's standards. For example, my SIL complained that her mom never saw her play lacrosse games ( in the 80's) but, parents were not encouraged to go to practices or even games really. So, I thought it unfair to judge her mom for not being there.

The Queen was raising the two elder children based on the Victorian era and was also Queen. You know duty before family. So you are being very simple in describing her as a "bad mother" She wasn't.

You’re completely nuts. I grew up in the 70s and 80s. Parents went to their kids sports games. Not obsessively like now, not every minute of every practice, but most parents made an effort to go to most of the games. Stop rewriting history and gaslighting your friend in her justifiable sense of neglect.

Parents did not go to every game in the 80s/early 90s. DH and I were just talking about how our parents almost never went to our games. Sure, some came, but I don’t remember any parents going to all the games like we do now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was about five when Charles and Diana married and in college when she died. I was always confused by the love for her.
Obviously the Camilla stuff was humiliating because it was so public but faithful love marriages are exceptionally rare among royal couples.
Anyone who thinks that Diana would have “loved Charles forever” is an utter moron. She didn’t love him and wasn’t expected to.
Frankly, the royal family made a terrible choice with her. She was unfit for such a public role. Aside from being able to birth an heir, the most important thing should be thick skin. The woman couldn’t even hold her head up, for heavens sake. I don’t know what the royal family was thinking.

But that’s kind of what’s so detestable to me. If Charles wanted someone who would silently accept his affairs step one is don’t marry a 19 year old virgin. Like he really could’ve married someone that got to experience the world the way that he had or at least someone with a fully matured brain but just felt entitled to sow his wild oats into his thirties and then marry someone who is too young to have done the same.

Blame the queen for this, because she was the one who required that he marry a virgin.

The Queen was a bad queen and a bad mother. I never will understand why people admire this woman.

You’re applying modern standards and not considering the unique circumstances of her upbringing.

The unique circumstances of her upbringing, as has now been demonstrated many times over, were terrible for children.

She was a bad mother. She openly disliked Charles and doted on Andrew.

Do you not understand history? You can not go back and judge women by today's standards. For example, my SIL complained that her mom never saw her play lacrosse games ( in the 80's) but, parents were not encouraged to go to practices or even games really. So, I thought it unfair to judge her mom for not being there.

The Queen was raising the two elder children based on the Victorian era and was also Queen. You know duty before family. So you are being very simple in describing her as a "bad mother" She wasn't.

You’re completely nuts. I grew up in the 70s and 80s. Parents went to their kids sports games. Not obsessively like now, not every minute of every practice, but most parents made an effort to go to most of the games. Stop rewriting history and gaslighting your friend in her justifiable sense of neglect.

Yep. This is why Elizabeth and not her mother became the head of monarchy after her father died. The same will happen to Catherine when William dies, George will become king.

No one is confused about this. They are all still called Queen First Name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love her. Always disliked Diana, sorry. They will be a good bridge King and Queen between the grandeur of the Elizabethan years and the modernity of Prince William and his family.

Also, I am watching the BBC and the crowd was amazing. Quiet and respectful with shouts of God Save the King. It’s something Americans don’t understand and that fine and preferred. We live in a Republic. We should find the whole thing weird. That’s why we live here and not there. But no major party in the UK has ever run on a platform that includes ending the monarchy and they won’t. They’d have to change the entire makeup of the country and government. It would be expensive and time consuming. It’s too embedded in the culture. It would be like starting a whole new country. Won’t happen in our lifetimes, sorry.

The culture is changing. This is the Prime Minister of the UK who took office 3 days ago.

She’s not wrong. And I’m a fan of the queen.