Camilla will be a queen

Logically enough, if she's the wife of a king.

Once again, Her Maj has brought out a word of common sense, expressing the assumption that Charles' wife be known as Queen Consort when the the time comes. Presumably this is the technical title for those who are queens only by marriage, as against herself and Victoria being Queens in their own right.

She wouldn't be in a position to enforce it, but an expressed wish would be very influential.

a reply to: pheonix358
Under current law, the legal process makes it automatic.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Will Queen Elizabeth ever step down, or is she there til death?

a reply to: BrokenCircles
I'm inclined to think that the sense of duty she was brought up in will keep hr there until death. Even if she were incapacitated, that would not matter, because other people could do the remaining work on her behalf.

Also stepping down would be technically "abdicating", and the Abdication Crisis of 1936 was such a family trauma that she would shy away from the concept.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Somehow, "King William" sounds better.

Cheers

a reply to: pheonix358

If there's one thing that Brexit and the last three elections have taught us, it's that the British working man knows his place again.

originally posted by: DISRAELI

Also stepping down would be technically "abdicating", and the Abdication Crisis of 1936 was such a family trauma that she would shy away from the concept.

But there are more recent abdications in European royal families which, with the exception of Juan Carlos of Spain, were smooth and uncontroversial.

a reply to: Whodathunkdatcheese
I still think her psychology will be more infuenced by what happened in the days of her childhood.

a reply to: BrokenCircles

Will Queen Elizabeth ever step down, or is she there til death?

Ruling British Monarchs tend to rule till they die, one way or another.
Obviously there was one relatively recent notable exception.

I think she'll 'reign' until she passes away, she see's it as her duty.

a reply to: Whodathunkdatcheese

If there's one thing that Brexit and the last three elections have taught us, it's that the British working man knows his place again.

Care to elaborate on that?

How has Brexit 'taught us that'?
Where is the relevance to QEII expressing her desire for Camilla to be known as Queen Consort when Charles succeeds her?

As for stepping down?
I personally think if she was going to do that she would have done it by now.....but who knows? These people certainly don't think the same way ordinary people do.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I don't think it makes much difference what she's called other than if Charles chooses Arthur as his Regnal name she should perhaps change hers to Guinevere , think of the tourism boost !

As Andrew has lost his titles perhaps he could change his to Sir Humpsalot.


This seems to be another step toward the Queen stepping back from public life , I don't think she will abdicate but I do see Charles / Arthur becoming Prince Regent until she passes.

Charles is a great advocate for nature and animal welfare two things close to my heart , I wish him well for his time (when it comes) as Monarch and give my respects to the Queen for her years of dedication and service.

God save the Queen.

(Not a royalist)

originally posted by: BrokenCircles
a reply to: DISRAELI

Will Queen Elizabeth ever step down, or is she there til death?

I'm sure Madame Tussauds and Boston Dynamics have it covered for the indefinate future.

Regarding Camilla...I'm sure she became a Freemason years ago. Something Princess Diana refused which is why she was liquidated so professionally.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: DISRAELI

I don't think it makes much difference what she's called other than if Charles chooses Arthur as his Regnal name

Has there been talk of that? No reason against, historically. The previous Charleses are unfortunate precedents. The British Public would find it confusing, though. There was a collective sigh of relief, voiced by a newsreader, at the announcement that Diana was NOT going to be called "Princess Charles", as previous protocol would have demanded.

a reply to: DISRAELI
a reply to: gortex

I could understand him not wanting to use Charles as his regnal name given the history surrounding the previous monarchs of that name.
But Arthur?
Delusions of grandeur?
I don't think Charlie boy is the Once and Future King prophesised do you? 🤣🤣🤣

a reply to: Freeborn
Isn't it one of hs Christian names? Historical convention would allow him to use a middle name instead of the first one.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Yes, convention would 'allow' it....but I'm sure it'd be viewed as rather egotistical.
Still, there's no second guessing what Royal's think, they don't go through the same sort of thought processes or see the world in the same light as we mere mortals do.

Ooh, when that happens they should bring out a range of Jubilee "Camilla Tea".

Like Chamomile mixed with Earl Grey - an upper and a downer.

Anyway, I heard somewhere the other day that Charles and Camilla are actually cousins.
Hence despite their affair even before Diana, they weren't supposed to have kids.

Can this be confirmed?

a reply to: halfoldman
Marriage of cousins is legal.