I know this brings quite a nerve to the surface for many Britons, speaking as an American, I do not understand the Monarchy. Could she ever be queen? Or will she be the ‘Princess Consort’? A Dutchess perhaps? If someone could explain the process to an American…and perhaps their personal feelings, I’d appreciate it.
She’ll be a Princess Consort - Not Queen Camilla. It’s the same as Prince Phillip.
She has to be called something "King Charles (actually King George VII) and Mrs Windsor doesn’t sound right does it?
It’s not a “touchy” subject over here. Most people are either pleased for them or indifferent.
I wouldn’t call the arrangement the same as Prince Philip’s. He married the Queen respectably, and continued the Succession. She just wants to stop being a mistress.
I certainly object to the hypocrisy, and there has also been a lot of public criticism. Why do you think it has taken so long to set the marriage up?
Charles Rules out ‘Queen Camilla’ after Royal Wedding
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/1561.html
According to the article, her title will be Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cornwall after they marry. If and when he becomes king, she will be the Princess Consort.
Sorry if I missed something here, but why would Charles be King George VII instead of King Charles x (x being whatever the next Charles number is)?
I know that his actual name is Charles Philip Arthur George, but why would he take the last of these names as his royal designation, rather than the first, which he has used all his life?
Wikipedia says “Charles has indicated in the past that when he does ascend to the throne, he will become, in a gesture to his late grandfather, King George VII, rather than King Charles III.”
Another obvious possibility is that “King Charles” is considered unlucky, since he was king before we abolished the monarchy last time and chopped his head off.
It’d be Charles III.
And though Charles I was a tyrant who was beheaded, Charles II was who Parliament turned to when Cromwell died, and probably had more fun being king than anyone short of Mel Brooks.
It’s not without precedent-his grandfather’s first name was Albert and everyone called him “Bertie”, but he went by “King George VI.” And King Edward VII’s first name was Albert also, and he too was called “Bertie.” The Duke of Windsor was called “David” by everyone in the family. It’s just one of those royalty things.
Wait a sec… shouldn’t he now be forced to abdicate, severing the line, so that the Regents (or somesuch) have to search for a “rightful heir”, who turns out to be a down on his luck cabbie (or waiter, I can’t be sure) who has been working in New York City for the past several years, totally unaware of his Royal lineage? Of course he’ll be good looking, funny and smart, but best of all, just recently had caught the eye of a young, beautiful princess. When they first met they knew that their love was forbidden, but once he ascends the thrown (after several wacky, madcap misadventures which revolve around his efforts to learn proper Royal protocol), the pair will fall madly in love and have a wedding that is universally welcomed and blessed (all this despite the efforts of a good looking cad to win her heart, which are of course thwarted by our hero).
At least that’s the way it usually happens, right? I mean, c’mon, Hollywood wouldn’t lie to me.
Moving this from IMHO to General Questions.
It appears that the late Queen Mother had some extremely dominant longevity genes. Add on modern medicine. Charles will become King no earlier than age 81.
He might have, but didn’t he eventually dissolve Parliament, convert to Catholicism on his deathbed, and lead England down the path to James II and the Glorious Revolution? Why would the Defender of the Faith want to open that can of worms?
And don’t get me started on the historical accuracy of Stage Beauty.
Sorry, but this made me laugh: “once he ascends the thrown”
I think that these two people between them caused a whole mess of pain and heartache. Usually I am thrilled to see love triumphant–with these two, I feel that the co-dependents are making it real at last…
Unless Parliament passes a law to prevent it Camilla will, like every other woman to marry a British/English/Scottish King for the last thousand years, automatically
become Queen-consort the moment Charles ascends the throne. The Queen can issue Letters Patent to prevent her from becoming Princess of Wales.
Under current law she’ll automatically get the female equivalent of her husbands titles (like every other woman to marry a royal or peer). If the government doesn’t change any of the laws when they marry it’ll creat alot of confusion. Example, the Earl of Wessex’s daughter is technically styled HRH Princess Louise of Wessex, but that style is never used formerly or informerly. The Letters Patent of 1917 never having been amended.
Tony Blair should introduce a bill into Parliament to straighten this out. Preferbly before the wedding or else the Queen could have a heart-attack while they’re one their honeymoon, and Camilla would become HM Queen Camilla whether she calls herself that or not.
One of my favorite royal factoids is that Prince William has ‘Arthur’ as one of his list of first names. If he were to choose that as the name under which he will reign, someone (The Garter King of Arms?) would have to decide whether to style him as Arthur the First or Arthur the Second, depending on whether the legendary King Arthur is considered an actual part of England’s history. Maybe he’ll find a girl named Gwen and befriend a Lance (since he’s unlikely to find a Bedivere, even in Wales).
I read somewhere that Camilla’s great great grandmother had an affair with Charles’ great great grandfather. I’m just glad Charles and Camilla never procreated. Think of the horse-faced kids they woulda had.
A fun idea, but probably not an issue. The numbering system starts with the House of Normandy in 1066. The Saxon and earlier kings are not considered part of the sequence. There were three Saxon King Edwards before Edward I of the House of Plantagenet (1272-1307): Edward the Elder (899-924), Edward the Martyr (975-978), and Edward the Confessor (1042-1066).
Shade already answered why Charles wouldn’t be used. Charles and his father (also named Philip) are reported not to get along very well, and if Charles chose “Philip” as his coronation name, it would be honoring him quite a bit. Arthur would be out, as it’s hard to live up to a legendary king. That leaves George, which has the luck of being used by many kings before.
So which king was this referring to? And what was the name of Camilla’s ancestor?
If I count the generations correctly, Charles’s great-great-grandfather was Prince Albert. Or rather Albert was one of them; he has 7 others, barring inbreeding.[sup]1[/sup] Don’t know who the others were, but someone really interested could probably find out via various web pages on royalty.
[sup]1[/sup]Given that this is royalty we’re talking about, the possibility of inbreeding is significant. I wonder if Charles is descended from Vickie/Albert by more than one line?