Author Topic: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II  (Read 188819 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Adagietto

  • Guest
Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
« Reply #420 on: June 27, 2010, 02:28:02 PM »
Ah, so they will vote to become republics because they don't like Camilla? It is of course only a matter of time before Australia becomes a republic anyhow, though I would hope not too many people would reach a decision on such childish grounds.

Robert_Hall

  • Guest
Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
« Reply #421 on: June 27, 2010, 02:35:35 PM »
That is pretty odd timing, Const. as no one knows just when such a coronation might take place.

Constantinople

  • Guest
Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
« Reply #422 on: June 27, 2010, 03:00:05 PM »
The point was that when Queen Elizabeth is gone and "Queen"Camilla is impending, then any referenda after that will be a referendum on Camilla basically.  The word in Canada is that she is not wanted as a head of state or consort of a head of state.  And you are right, Camilla would not be the sole reason, she would be the tipping point.

Robert_Hall

  • Guest
Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
« Reply #423 on: June 27, 2010, 03:11:30 PM »
I can certainly understand that. I do not care for the woman myself.  But a separation from the crown takes more consideration than  simply a dislike of the consort. There are serious constitutional matters to be debated. It is a lot more complicated than changing a lightbulb.

Adagietto

  • Guest
Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
« Reply #424 on: June 27, 2010, 03:21:30 PM »
The Queen will still be with us, God willing, for a decade more and longer, it is difficult to know how these things will play out in the long term.

Constantinople

  • Guest
Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
« Reply #425 on: June 27, 2010, 04:06:00 PM »
My guess is that the Queen will be with us for about 20 years.  And Robert, Constitutions are open to change and if you don't think the governments of Canada and Australia do not already have contingency plans in place for movement to a rebublic, then you don't understand what both these goverments have been up to.  Additiionally, Jamaica and New Zealand are also beginning to discuss replacing the British monarch with a domestic head of state, thats how popular Camilla is.  She will be known as the consort who put the Commonwealth to rest.

When Charles and Camilla toured Canada, they had the lowest turnout of any royal tour in Canada's history and Canada is a very monarchical country.

http://www.financialpost.com/related/topics/Should+Prince+Charles+ever+king/2199748/story.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_on_the_monarchy_in_Canada

http://www.counterweights.ca/2009/05/long_wave_goodbye/
Edward McWhinney, who is the source of the some of the comments was one of my mentors at university and is one of the world's top constitutional lawyers and advisors and has been an advisor to about 30 countries and the United Nations.

Robert_Hall

  • Guest
Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
« Reply #426 on: June 27, 2010, 04:31:56 PM »
I understand quite well, Const. e discussions and debates began long before Camilla came on the scene. In any case, I do not see any changes afoot while QEII is still on the throne.

Adagietto

  • Guest
Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
« Reply #427 on: June 27, 2010, 05:23:16 PM »
Sometimes one begins to think  it might be 30 years! The latter article is very interesting. I would have thought have thought that in Canada etc., the monarchy/republic question is entirely secondary to the question of whether it is appropriate to have a foreign head of state (which is bound to be answered in the negative sooner or later). Are people in Jamaica and NZ really that exercised about Camilla? They are not exercised about her even here in the UK!

Robert_Hall

  • Guest
Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
« Reply #428 on: June 27, 2010, 05:57:18 PM »
I think you are right Adagieto,   none of my friends pay any attention to her. To most royals, actually. The only ones to even notice her are on  royalty boards like this.

Constantinople

  • Guest
Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
« Reply #429 on: June 27, 2010, 10:41:35 PM »
I am not quite sure what you mean by "exercized" but in both Canada and Australia the articles that talk about Camilla possibly becoming consort to the head of state are almost entirely negative and these are not just in tabloids.  Maybe the PR hacks have been working wonders in Britain but in Canada and Australia she is seen as a vindictive and self serving person, willing to do almost anything for power.  When those tapes came out of the cell phone calls between her and Charles she was seen as little more than a concubine or courtesan and neither country wants to be represented by that.  If  you look at her speeches on Youtube, she has little natural warmth, she is not relaxed in public and she is not a good public speaker so the question becomes, what kind of value does she add?  She obviously cannot provide Charles with children, so that aspect, which has already been fulfilled by Diana, is irrelevant.  Her main role seems to be jewelry collection and that is an expensive function.  What we have left  are private pleasures provided to a soveriegn and that is nothing that justifies the large additional costs to the state.

Adagietto

  • Guest
Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
« Reply #430 on: June 28, 2010, 05:13:10 AM »
Some people do seem to have an obsessive hatred of this woman, and seem to assume that everyone is similarly obsessed about her, but from casual talk in the UK, I get the impression that people are generally willing to accept her without having strong feelings either way. From film and reports of her at public occasions, she seems to perform perfectly adequately; I studiously avoid reading most of the nonsense that is written in the press about the royal family, so am not really competent to comment on that. I am thoroughly sceptical of press coverage of princesses that present them either as being saints or witches; in real life, human character and human relations are always so much complicated than that. As I have said, I have never tried to reach any conclusions about the private character of this woman, partly because I am not that interested, and partly because I think that it is impossible to do so on the basis of the kind of stuff that is published about her.  The only disinterested first-hand observations that I have heard about her come from people who mixed with her in army circles way back, and haven't been inclined to view her as some kind of stage villainess. Your characterization of her sounds to me like a one-sided caricature, and as such, a sin against human charity.

Constantinople

  • Guest
Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
« Reply #431 on: June 28, 2010, 05:51:12 AM »
My personal feeling is if she were married to a minor royal, I wouldnt care about her personality or her past.  The same would be true if she was a private person but as someone who has shoehorned her way into the position of consort of head of state of Canada, I am appalled.  And in terms of the role of a consort, she fulfills very few of these.  Charles' marriage to her is a reneging of any sense of noblesse oblige as she, in my opinion and the opinions of most Canadians, does not add value to the position of head of state. 

Adagietto

  • Guest
Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
« Reply #432 on: June 28, 2010, 06:31:20 AM »
I agree that if Charles had put his royal duty (and the interests of the monarchy) ahead of his personal desires, he would not have married her or indeed continued to associate with her, because she is a divisive figure associated with the break-up of his first marriage; this was, if you like, and allowing for due differences, his Edward VIII moment. It doesn't look to me, though, as if this was all a result of machinations on her part, he plainly loves her and even depends on her.

Constantinople

  • Guest
Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
« Reply #433 on: June 28, 2010, 07:54:43 AM »
Well it is interesting that  you mention that you don't think that it was a result of machinations on her part and that he depends on her.  I would describe it as an unhealthy emotional or psycho sexual dependency and probably extremely close to the one Edward developed for Wallace Simpson.  How do you think that developed? It was probably due to psycological manipulation from Camilla.  And if that is the case, you have to start to wonder who is the consort and who is the monarch in waiting.

Adagietto

  • Guest
Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
« Reply #434 on: June 28, 2010, 08:57:26 AM »
You are evidently a good deal more confident than I am about prying into the souls of people whom one doesn't know, I think I will pass on that one, and leave it to the historians to get the matter right or wrong as the case may be! In situations like this I do think one should be wary of interpreting the matter in terms of simple stereotypical patterns, in which the woman involved is necessarily a schemer or a temptress.