This is pretty much for superficial reasons. We have no reason to believe that William and Harry are better or smarter than Charles is.
Love is irrelevant. It’s about respect for the office and its symbolic purpose.
It’s also sexist. There’s a subtext that only men can get cuckolded, and that it’s worse for a woman to cheat than a man.
What do you get with one of those peerages, anyway? Besides possibly making it easier to book fancy hotel rooms?
Well, you and your wife get an automatic invite to coronations.
You get a title to decorate your name.
You can apply for a coat of arms to decorate your stuff.
If you are ever invited to a state dinner, you may consider yourself insulted if you are not seated closer to the monarch than lower-ranking aristocrats.
There is no need for any such reform, a peerages inheritance is decided by the letters patent creating it and some peerages do permit women to inherit in their own right, notably the Dukes of Marlborough.
Her son. Old Denis was merely the vehicle.
Though frankly he was a prominent enough businessman that had he not been married to the PM he would have gotten at least a knighthood anyway
You don’t even get that. For one thing, the wives of peers traditionally only get invited if a Queen is being crowned. Moreover, in 1953 not all peers were invited, with some having to enter a ballot first. Which I suppose was the poshest raffle ever. Also, it seems exceptionally unlikely that there won’t be radical changes this time. Even just restricting it to those currently with seats in the House of Lords seems impractically generous.
The answer to “can Parliament?” is always yes. (I mean, at least in law. Parliament probably could not invent a perpetual motion machine or cause time to run backward.)
I think it’s #2. Previous queens consort were simply “the Queen.” Time will tell if this is a permanent change or just something for a transitional period while people get used to “the Queen” being someone other than the late Queen and someone who is not the sovereign.
I’m not sure what I expect. On the one hand, the fact that “Her Majesty the Queen Consort” is being used formally by the Palace in the Court Circular makes me think that it might be an attempt to change things for the long term, perhaps because the law has been changed to make queens regnant occur in roughly equal proportion to kings. On the other hand, I don’t buy that the King intends for his wife to have a style any more qualified than what his grandmother, great grandmother, etc had.
Frankly I am more interested in the title William will bestow on her in her widowhood, (presuming she outlived Charles). Especially after the look of loathing he gave her at the accesssion proclamation.
“Her Horridness the Harridan” sounds about right. 
He gets along well with her, but her clearly was thinking “that should have been my mother” when he saw her affixing her signature to the proclamation.
I feel the same way. So sue me.
If that were so and King Wills 5 (dubs on boy-band name) did act overtly spiteful, that would be a mark on him for no real benefit to anyone.
But really that would be predicated on His current Majesty not even remotely inheriting the longevity of his parents or encountering misfortune. Another two decades and both he and William will have plenty of opportunity of covering themselves in glory or shame independent of the former Ms. Spencer and Camilla and good God I hope so, dammit. Get over it, world.
In this House of Commons, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
Would he have to bestow any title? As I understand it she would automatically be entitled to be styled HM Queen Camilla as a dowager.
Yes, two recent incidents caught on video that both oddly involve pens. Maybe he has an irrational hatred of pens? Pent-up anger? (sorry).
As you say, maybe it’s just stress from the new job, but he really comes off as peevish, overly entitled and easily irritated in these videos. Both pen videos can be seen in one compilation here:
https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2022/09/14/king-charles-pesky-pens-moos-orig-bdk.cnn
If she outlives her husband, she automatically becomes Queen Dowager, in exactly the way that she automatically became Queen when her husband became King. These are titles and ranks established by centuries of usage rather than by any statute or order.
For her not to be them is what would require positive action. Also, that would be positive action that William could not take alone. The assumption was always that for the wife of the King not to be Queen was sufficiently anomalous that it would require legislation, even if she had voluntarily declined to use the title. That would have been legislation the Government would now be busy drafting. Depriving her of the title of Queen Dowager would be equally involved.
And for what? She is already Queen, will probably be crowned as such and will hold the title for quite some time, even if the King’s reign is relatively short. Turning her into The-Woman-Formerly-Known-As-The-Queen-Consort would achieve precisely nothing. It would thus be pretty much bottom of the list of ways in which William V could honour his mother’s memory.
should camilla outlive charles she would be queen dowager. how much she would be in public or family events depends on health and how close william’s children are to her.
For that to happen, though, his mother would have had to stay in an unhappy marriage. If he’s thinking it through, that’s probably not what he wants. It’s something I’ve been thinking of, watching these marches and signing ceremonies. Most if not all Brits would be okay with Charles + Camilla, if they’d married in the late 1970s. Nobody would have heard of Diana, so there would be no comparisons. William and Harry would not be their kids, but no one would know the difference there either. Wonder what Fred and Gladys’s hypothetical children would be like?
Yeah, holding too many Duchies gives you an Opinion penalty of -20 per extra Duchy with all vassals. Not worth it.