Queen Camilla

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

So as I understand it, if Charles becomes King, Camilla will not be referred to as Queen.

Why ever not?

― MarkH (MarkH), Saturday, 12 February 2005 14:52 (twenty-one years ago)

I thought this was a Greta Garbo film for a moment (Camilla/Queen Christina).

― Masked Gazza, Saturday, 12 February 2005 15:03 (twenty-one years ago)

Why ever not?

Because she'll never replace Di as our Queen of Hearts.

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Saturday, 12 February 2005 15:06 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.classic45s.com/images/juicenewton1_ps.jpg

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 12 February 2005 15:07 (twenty-one years ago)

I did not grieve for Di. I didn't know her so why should I? I felt a little uncomfortable about the fact that the media seemed to be telling me that I ought to be doing so, but that feeling passed.

Let's examine this on 2 levels. A man wife dies. he is lonely. he loves another. they get married and live happily ever after. the end.

A male heir to the throne marries. The sovreign dies. The heir is crowned King. His wife becomes Queen.

I'm sorry, but that's the sum of it as far as I'm concerned. You could argue about whether there should be a constitutional monarchy at all, but that's an entirely separate issue.

― MarkH (MarkH), Saturday, 12 February 2005 15:12 (twenty-one years ago)

A man wife dies. he is lonely. he loves another. they get married and live happily ever after. the end.

Erm, what about all that adultery stuff?

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Saturday, 12 February 2005 15:45 (twenty-one years ago)

so what? Being royal doesn't make you perfect or superhuman.

― MarkH (MarkH), Saturday, 12 February 2005 15:49 (twenty-one years ago)

Phillip isn't called king, so I don't see the problem.

My main concern is to whether we'll get a day off work or not, as it's a royal wedding and whatnot, and on a Friday to.

― jel -- (jel), Saturday, 12 February 2005 15:51 (twenty-one years ago)

I mean, I was too young to enjoy a day off when he got married first time around.

― jel -- (jel), Saturday, 12 February 2005 15:52 (twenty-one years ago)

Isn't it because she's Catholic? Or is it because they're only having a civil wedding?

― caitlin (caitlin), Saturday, 12 February 2005 16:53 (twenty-one years ago)

BBC mentioned something about divorcees (as Camilla is as well) marrying while the former partner is still alive being frowned upon in some corners of the church Charles will be heading up some day soon if we are all unlucky. That's probably just crap though.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Saturday, 12 February 2005 17:14 (twenty-one years ago)

I love her title: "Princess Consort"

Why not just Whore of Buckingham?

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Saturday, 12 February 2005 17:41 (twenty-one years ago)

is it because she's a pirate?

― ken c (ken c), Saturday, 12 February 2005 18:23 (twenty-one years ago)

Is it because she's an ugly munter?

― C J (C J), Saturday, 12 February 2005 18:37 (twenty-one years ago)

But she isn't that much of an ugly munter. There were some photos of her in the paper this week, and she was quite the pretty young thing in her day.

http://sfrsite.topcities.com/pictures/Camilla_01.jpg

Di wasn't all that either, you know, and Charles isn't exactly George Clooney himself.

I don't see why she can't be the Princess of Wales either. She's marrying the Prince of Wales, isn't she?

― ailsa (ailsa), Saturday, 12 February 2005 19:13 (twenty-one years ago)

(the caption under that photo must explain something, I guess)

― ailsa (ailsa), Saturday, 12 February 2005 19:15 (twenty-one years ago)

Thank you for revealing to me the existence of Spanking Facts and Research.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Saturday, 12 February 2005 19:17 (twenty-one years ago)

(ew, or maybe not -- that site's a little creepy)

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Saturday, 12 February 2005 19:19 (twenty-one years ago)

hahaha, "whore of buckingham." i love it. i read something where her great-great-great grandmother was the mistress to his great-great grandfather. history repeats itself, indeed!

being as that im american the whole royal thing is really lost upon me, its kind of nice seeing prince charles marry a woman that he's been in love with for over thirty years. it kind of sucks that he had to enter a marriage that seemed pretty loveless [but at least brought him some attractive looking heirs] before this happened. why didnt he marry her in the first place?

― maria tessa sciarrino (theoreticalgirl), Saturday, 12 February 2005 19:20 (twenty-one years ago)

why isn't phillip called the king? I don't understand your crazy rules of monarchy.

― kyle (akmonday), Saturday, 12 February 2005 19:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Press the tit!

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Saturday, 12 February 2005 20:01 (twenty-one years ago)

it's because the CoE doesn't approve of divorce, it just allows it, am i rite?

― fcussen (Burger), Saturday, 12 February 2005 20:05 (twenty-one years ago)

five years pass...

Oh no! Does she have to be shot now?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/7568604/Duchess-of-Cornwall-suffers-broken-leg.html

― StanM, Thursday, 8 April 2010 18:30 (fifteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.