Well I’m happy for them in so far as I give a stuff.
I wonder what she’ll be called - I’d guess the Countess of Roxburgh (it’s a title Charles uses in Scotland).
But the question on the nation’s lips is : “will we get a day off”?
Well I’m happy for them in so far as I give a stuff.
I wonder what she’ll be called - I’d guess the Countess of Roxburgh (it’s a title Charles uses in Scotland).
But the question on the nation’s lips is : “will we get a day off”?
Good lord, it’s true! :eek: Bet the ol’ Duke of Windsor’s ghost will be saying “See!! It can be done!”
So will it be a morganatic marriage, or, if Charles does become King, will she be Queen Consort?
As I said I suspect she will get a courtesy title - and it has been looking for a while that the Countess of Roxburgh was being parked for her as Charles makes a point of using it when in Scotland. However she’ll get no more than that, and certainly won’t be a HRH.
It is a matter of precedential housekeeping as much as anything - in her own right she is very low down the Order of Precedence, this will normalise things for when she accompanies Charles to very formal things. It wil also allow him to make a more formal financial arrangement fo her support.
Thanks for the explanation!
I think the spaniel-eared one more often plays at being Duke of Rothesay when in Scotland, but, like owlstretchingtime, one hardly gives a stuff.
Turns out Camillla will be Duchess of Cornwall (tres "Mists of Avalon ), and when Charles is king, she will be called "Princess COnsort.
(Is it just me, or does “Princess Consort” sound like the name of a car?
The comment in my office was “They might as well just call her ‘The Royal Concubine’ and be done with it”.
“The Hound of the Baskervilles” has a ring to it.
They actually cut into Radio 4 programmes to announce this. The last time I remember that happening was 9/11. (insert incredulous smiley here)
World-shattering news indeed! Or was it a slow news day at the desks?
charles has been waiting for this day since he met that horse faced titwank
Well they’ve been leading bulletins with this ‘news’ ever since. Switching on the telly I half expected somber music and flags at half-mast.
I can’t believe I’m going to do this, but here goes.
You know, Charles probably loves Camilla. He has, in all probability, loved her for a very very long time. However, Camilla was not a “suitable” wife for the heir to the throne – she’s not royalty. Some speculate that Charles’ marriage to Diana was ‘forced’ in some ways. Now, I’m not defending Charles commiting adultery, and I think Diana really got a raw deal out of it all. However, at the end of the day Charles probably does love Camilla. If it were anyone else – forced into a loveless marriage for the sake of “appearances” and “family”, which ended in divorce, leaving the man free to marry the woman he truly loves, no one would blame him for doing so. Fair dos to him really, why should he be unhappy for the sake of an arcane, outdated tradition?
I’m with ya, angua. My first thought was – good for him.
I agree with Twickie, good for him.
I woke up this morning with Tony Blair telling me the news. My radio was set to NPR.
Royals do love to announce their engagements in February don’t they?
No, no, no.
Nobody forced Charles to marry anyone. Nobody forbids him to marry the woman he loves.
However Charles loves the money*. He loves the power**. He wants it all.
If Charles Windsor, private citizen, wants to marry his mistress, fine. His morals are his own afffair.
If the Heir to the throne and the future Head of the Church wants to commit adultery before, during and after his marriage, then he is unfit for either post.
This greedy, stupid, immoral man has waited years until a PR campaign has hopefully prepared the ground for him to make an ‘honest woman’ of his mistress.
I confidently expect that if a public outcry forces him to choose between the throne and marrying Camilla, he’ll dump the wedding like a shot.
*well over £10 million a year from the Duchy of Cornwall. Provided he stays a Royal.
**King AND Head of the Church.
You might have asked him that back when he agreed of his own free will to make himself unhappy for the sake of an arcane, outdated tradition. I mean, when he married Diana he wasn’t exactly a naive child who didn’t understand what he was getting into. He was, IIRC, knocking on for forty years old. When people freely and knowingly bring on their own unhappiness, I have a hard time mustering much sympathy for them.
OK, glee, yes, he could have renounced his claim to the throne and married Camilla in the first place. Maybe he wanted to. Maybe there was pressure on him not to. We don’t know, and I doubt we will ever know.
Granted, he should not have commited adultery – that was wrong and immoral, and I agree with you there, and I’m not convinced that he should become head of the Church of England. However, in this day and age, what power does the Queen/King have anyway?
How do we know that it was of his own free will though? Maybe there was a lot of family pressure behind closed (very closed) doors-- its certainly not unheard of.
The problem with Charles’ first marriage is that he ditzy sloane he married had no idea what the deal was.
The purpose of the Prince of Wales’ wife can be summed up thus “an heir and a spare”. After that it’s up to her to accompany her husband in public, open a few hospitals and shag anyone she likes just so long as she does it discretely. Meanwhile he will bang his mistress.
Diana - being as thick as five short planks, didn’t get to grips with this (which given that her Dad was an Earl and famous roue merely reinforces the dopiness of the bint). She decided that she preferred the spotlight and once she realised that instead of bopping shyly at sloaney parties to Wham records she could actually hang out with George Michael it all went tits-up.
At least Camilla knows the rules.