Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II

[Michael HR]

I imagine it will be many years before we have to think about the matter as the Queen is in good health. If she takes after her Mother we will all be very old at the next coronation.

[Norbert]

Charles has suggested that Westminster Hall would be used for the newly crowned monarch to greet and be acclaimed by the different faiths within his Kingdom

[Grace]

We've discussed this before.  Most (including me) are of the opinion that he can acknowledge different faiths within his kingdom, but not represent them.

[mcdnab]

As has been pointed out the Coronation service has evolved over many years - its been changed numerous times - George VI's was different to his fathers because changes had to be made to reflect the feelings of Ireland (he was still King of the free state in 1937), Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa (all of who's status had changed since 1911).  So he only swore to maintain the Protestant Faith in the UK for example.  Changes again were made for Elizabeth II's and no doubt more changes will be made for that of Charles III or George VII. 

And i'm with Grace i don't think as head of the established church and as a parliamentary monarch (who is required by Parliament on accession to guarantee and maintain the protestant succession) he can "represent" any other religion.  The Queen has trod a very careful path - maintaining her own clearly devout faith and Anglicanism whilst showing respect to other faiths. 

Its also worth pointing out that the majority of people in the UK still identify themselves as Christian (and the majority of those would belong to the various Protestant faiths - although Roman Catholics form a signficant and sizeable group) - in the 2001 census for example the figures for the UK - suggest that all the other faiths (islam, sikh, buddist, judaeism, hindu etc) account for only around 5% of the population in fact after Christianity the biggest group say they have no identification with any religion.
 

[Martyn]

So if the Coronation ritual is something that is variable for each successive monarch and able to be adapted for changing times, then presumably the notion that Camilla does not have to be crowned is equally admissible?

Interestingly Channel 4 showed a repeat of the programme the other day about Camilla and its contention that she may actually be 'the saviour of the British Monarchy' - their words - as opposed, one imagines, to the notion that she has actually contributed to the loss of respect and interest in that institution.  This programme was no less patronising or obtuse the second time round in that its intent is quite clearly to enhance public perception of the couple by simply distorting what we know to be fact.

I'm quite prepared to accept that Camilla as a person is a good laugh, and that she is well liked amongst her circle, and I suppose that we should all avoid being too judgemental about the fact that both she and Charles quite cynically maintained a relationship over many years, double adultery in fact.

But, and this is a big but for me, there is a smugness about this couple that I simply find a major source of irritation.  I really feel that they consider themselves to be home and dry and that they imagine that nobody really has too much of an opinion about what has gone before and how it reflects upon them.  I suspect that some people still do care and do have an opinion about this, whether it is positive or negative, but we have simply been swamped by spin intended to boost both their profiles, not to mention that of other members of the RF, both living and dead.  I strongly suspect that this is just plain revisionism, which personally I find offensive.

I can't help feeling that Camilla does not deserve her place amongst the Queen Consorts of recent memory - worthy women who did their jobs to the best of their ability.  It's all just too 'in your face' for my liking, but then I'm not thrilled about the idea of Charles being King either.  As others have said, it's all hypothetical at the moment, as the Queen is in good health and will continue presumably until the grave claims her, but I don't love the idea of what may come after...........and I wouldn't be surprised if when this day does come, the concept of 'Princess Consort' and all the other fob-off nonsense is very swiftly dumped by the wayside..........

[CHRISinUSA]

Since I'm not the Queen's subject, I probably have no real right to comment on this particular topic; I don't know how I'd feel about it were I British (or Canadian, or Australian).  I certainly can understand Martyn's irritation about what he referred to as smugness on C&C's part.

But to play Devil's advocate for a moment, what alternative do they have?  They know full well their past actions, and they know full well that WE know their past actions.  They acknowledged their past sins during their marriage ceremony, and have since tried to move past them. Isn't that what we all would do?

One may argue that - given their past actions - they should, or shouldn't, have been allowed to marry.  One may argue that they are, or are not, suitable to succeed the Crown.  All reasonable.  But I can't bring myself to hold it against them for letting the past go and focusing on the present and future in their daily lives. 

God knows I've done some things in my life I'm not really proud of, and I'm grateful to have been able to acknowledge and apologize for them, and then put them in the past and move on.  Aren't we all entitled to that?

[Michael HR]

I do sort of agree with Chris but the British public are not going to forget Diana and the way she was treated. Charles has time and time again shown how self centrered he can be and it unsettles the British when his Mother has always put duty first. We shall have to see what happens in the future I suppose with regard to Charles. 

[Martyn]

I would agree with that Chris.  I think that we have to be pragmatic and put the past behind us where possible.

By the same token, it doesn't just wipe the slate clean and it doesn't make us like or respect this couple.  I'm sure that I'm not alone in thinking this and that perhaps the majority verdict on this couple over here is perhaps more one of indifference as opposed to any particular positive or negative sentiment.  

The smugness is a problem, as is the attitude that people in general are idiots and can be fed any old b/shit by the media in order to rewrite history and manipulate opinion.  I suspect that this Channel 4 repeat programme does more to invite controversy by its inveterate bias.........

[Martyn]

I do sort of agree with Chris but the British public are not going to forget Diana and the way she was treated. Charles has time and time again shown how self centrered he can be and it unsettles the British when his Mother has always put duty first. We shall have to see what happens in the future I suppose with regard to Charles. 

Maybe they will and maybe they won't.  I don't know that any good is really done by harking back to that.

The question is more to do with the suitability of this couple for their projected roles.  Personally I don't feel comfortable with the idea of her in that role.  She has only one quality that I can find to admire and that is her tenacity.........

[Michael HR]

Agreed

[joan_d]

God knows I've done some things in my life I'm not really proud of, and I'm grateful to have been able to acknowledge and apologize for them, and then put them in the past and move on.  Aren't we all entitled to that?

You, Chris (with respect) are not going to be crowned King of England.  With the priviledges, come certain responsibilities.  I am with Martyn on this one .   As a UK citizen, I really resent how they are trying to spin this situation so that it is acceptable.

Having lived in Australia, I would suggest that once the Queen is dead, they will once again have a Referendum regarding becoming a Republic and this time, Charles III will be known (as George III was for "losing" America) for "losing" Australia.

[Mari]

the British public are not going to forget Diana and the way she was treated. Charles has time and time again shown how self centered he can be and it unsettles the British when his Mother has always put duty first. We shall have to see what happens in the future I suppose with regard to Charles.

Well, this about sums up how I feel also. It hasn't been that long...despite the fact the Media Spin people want to make it "the past." People are People and they don't forget that easily. I too find this Couple smug and I do think they've gotten away with it in their eyes. But not in a large part of the Public's.

You, Chris (with respect) are not going to be crowned King of England.  With the priviledges, come certain responsibilities.  I am with Martyn on this one .   As a UK citizen, I really resent how they are trying to spin this situation so that it is acceptable.

So do I! And its worth remembering that with the privileges come the responsibilities...thank you Joan for pointing this out.

[Eric_Lowe]

Anyway with the Queen still healthy. We don't have to think about this at least for a while. 

[joan_d]

Anyway with the Queen still healthy. We don't have to think about this at least for a while. 

One never knows - Charles and Camilla are but a heartbeat away from the throne !!

[Norbert]

Obviously it's up to various nations to decide their future and good luck to the republics of Australia and New Zealand. However the monarchy is the blood in our cultural identity in the Uk and George VII will make a good King