Reply to Camilla apparently leaning into “The Queen” title

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Camilla apparently leaning into “The Queen” title "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]And? She's Her Majesty the Queen. That's what she's called.[/quote]

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

I believe queen Elizabeth gave the go ahead later. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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?[/quote]

The fact that Charles decided to give her the title of Queen is what matters. [b]Elizabeth doesn't control what titles the royal family uses after she dies.[/b] 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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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."[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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

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. [/quote]

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![/quote]

Diana is dead. Why should Camilla not live her life?[/quote]

Camilla always lived her life even before Diana died. Camilla was a mistress. 
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics