Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy

[Constantinople]

and then there is the reality of taxpayers having to support this woman.  Camilla is now on the Civil List, which means she is probably drawing a hefty salary for all she doesnt do and all those nice expensive trips to Canada are paid for by the Canadian government which means, the Canadian tax payer.

[Kalafrana]

Princess Anne also went through a long period of constant criticism, but has eventually won through on the basis of hard hard work and sense of responsibility. Camilla is making a late start and because of all the Diana adulation she has quite a mountain to climb. Perhaps she's just taking it very steady and not trying to be something she's not, i.e. another Diana.

As far as I'm concerned, she is a pleasant looking middle aged woman who dresses appropriately for her age, physical type and what she's doing.

Ann

[Grace]

Why is "Diana adulation" constantly, CONSTANTLY brought up in relation to whether or not Camilla is warmly and universally accepted as future Queen Consort?  Why is it that so many posters here think only "Diana fans" are against Camilla becoming Queen?  

Some people don't approve of "Queen Camilla" because of her longstanding liaison with the Prince of Wales - whilst he was married to someone else as was she and they believe that their subsequent marriage damaged the integrity of the monarchy.  Some don't believe Camilla should become Queen because of her husband's future position as head of the Church of England, while some resent her simply for the fact she was the cause of a vulnerable young woman suffering a great deal of anguish due to her hovering presence.  None of these examples, even the last, are necessarily the feelings of "Diana fans" AT ALL.

[Vecchiolarry]

Dear Grace,

You'd be surprised at 'the hoopla' that still exists for Diana.  I personally know 4 people who bewail her passing and one that even has a "shrine" to her in his kitchen!!!

While I was a 'fan' of Diana while she was alive, I was not and am not a fanatic about her.
BTW, Constantiople, I saw Charles and Diana on that 1983 trip to Canada (in Edmonton) and waved my little Canadian flag at them!!!

Larry

[Grace]

Oh yes, Vecchiolarry, I'm sure there are many people out there who love and revere Diana who resent Camilla very much because of this.  But I'm saying there are also those not necessarily particularly enamoured with the late Princess of Wales who don't wish to see the Duchess of Cornwall crowned Queen Consort.  They have other reasons apart from Diana for their opinions.

[ilyala]

I don't understand people's fixation with their heads of state leading immaculate lives. Starting with trying to end Bill Clinton's presidency because of adultery!

Has anyone checked the statistics? Real people cheat, adultery happens everywhere and I don't expect to get fired from my job because I cheat on my boyfriend/husband/whatever.

It's pretty obvious that Charles has married Diana because Camilla was already married and he had to marry someone. So he picked the wide-eyed child who seemed to adore everything he did. What's so wrong with him now trying to get a resemblance of a normal marriage with someone he obviously cares about since he stood by her for ages.

Had he decided at 60 to marry a 20 year-old bimbo, I would have understood the fuss. But it's obvious that real feelings are involved and that it's quite likely that his marriage to Camilla will bring him more peace (which in turn might make him a better less-stressed king) than his marriage with Diana ever did.

So, he talks dirty. So do 60% of the people who have sex. The difference is he's the Prince of Wales and got caught on tape. Personally I think it's a proof that he's human. I would have a harder time trusting a rigid old fool.

As for "everyone loved Diana so Camilla sucks"... Diana might've been more eye candy for the public and the press, but she had her share of problems - many of which arose from her unhappy marriage. The fact that Charles is trying to move on from that unhappy marriage for me is a good thing.

[Kalafrana]

'Diana adultation' is my shorthand for both the 'Diana was wonderful' mentality and the 'Diana was dreadfully treated' mentality. I think objectors to Camilla who preofess other reasons for their disapproval are much fewer in number.

Ann

[Grace]

One problem is that people don't expect or want their King or Queen to be "real people".  They want somebody better than that, realistic wish or not.  They don't want to think of their future ruler talking dirty, I'm not sure they even care or not whether he's happy or has "moved on" from Diana.  They want somebody like the present Queen who just gets on with the job, doesn't share her angst about what doesn't suit her in life and puts duty, not personal happiness, before all else.  A tall order indeed, but that's how I see it.

[ilyala]

The people want a king who does his job.

Queen Elizabeth is doing her job and I think Charles was educated to do his job too - he probably will do it quite well.

Had he gone to a TV Show and started talking "dirty" on purpose, that would have been unsuitable for a king.

But he did that in his own private room and he did not intend for that recording to go to the public - it was for Camilla's ears only. So, no, I still don't see the problem.

[Constantinople]

Some people but not many have a problem with Charles becoming King.  A LOT of people have a BIG problem with CAmilla becoming queen.  She does not look like a queen.  She does not act like a queen.  She does not have the breeding or DNA to be queen in name or in a de facto state.  And when the British part of the tab is £36 million a year and she is not elected, people have a right to be upset.  And that does not include what the other commonwealth countries that she will be head of state kick in. She has a troop of PR specialists working on her trying to make her palatable but you know what they say about silk purses and ears?  Her entire history prior to her marriage has been one of opportunism and arrogance.  the arrogance did not come out of achievments that she was personally responsible for merely being concubine to a prince.  By the way her Great Grand mother was Mrs Keppel so she seems to have a genetic disposition to these types of behaviour.  For those who don't know who Mrs Keppel was, she was Edward Vll's mistress.

[Adagietto]

'She does not have the breeding or DNA to be queen in name or in a de facto state. ' What on earth does that mean? That she does not come from a royal line? And God knows what a Queen 'looks like' or 'acts like; like everything under the sun to judge by the looks and behaviour of the Queens that have been seen in European countries in the last century or two. I don't have any strong feelings about her either way, but she doesn't strike me as being in the least arrogant and seems to conduct herself rather well on public occasions. This sort of bile strikes me as curious (and unappealing).

[CHRISinUSA]

I could not agree more; Constantinople, there was so much that was not accurate in your post, I'm having trouble finding anything that is.  Not to mention, you are free to dislike her, but your attack on the Duchess of Cornwall is quite unwarranted. 

Where to begin?  Suggesting Camilla's appearance makes her unsuitable to be Queen Consort is pure venom.  Her "breeding" is no less suitable than that of the future Queens of Spain, Denmark, Norway or Belgium.

The "£36 million" you reference is not for Camilla, or for any other single person for that matter.  It maintains a large number of historic properties, funds the salaries and duties of over 1,000 royal employees who administer the office of Head of State for 16 separate countries, and so forth.  Trying to tie that expenditure to Camilla is absurd.

Camilla will never be "head of state" of any country, as a Queen Consort has no constitutional role in the UK or any commonwealth realm.  And Camilla does not have a troop of PR specialists attempting to make her palatable.  Instead, the Prince of Wales employs that troop to handle all sorts of public relations and public information duties related to himself, his work, his wife and his sons.   This is no different than any other national leader on earth. 

Camilla's history (either prior to her 2nd marriage or since) has displayed absolutely no opportunism nor arrogance.  In the 1970s she wed and raised her family quietly and without fuss.  That she and the Prince of Wales remained in love throughout their separate marriages was certainly unfortunate for all involved, and the fact that they carried on an extramarital affair is certainly disappointing, but how is that arrogant or opportunistic? 

And by all accounts she did not seek to become Charles second wife; she would have been perfectly content to remain a divorcee living quietly in the country for the rest of her life - with no title, public role or any of the things that come along with it.

[Constantinople]

Well Chris
living in the US its nice of you to tell me who i can like or not like as my head of state.  And even if she is not head of state she will be the consort of the head of state and have access to all the royal jewels that are the property of the government.  Unlike the US, she could be there a lot longer than 8 years.  And the £36 million is the actual budget for the head of state which means at that time she will be dipping into the public purse big time.
  And we do know what a Queen acts like as we have an excellent example with the current Queen who noone disrespects or her mother or the previous 5 occupants of that position.  Queens dont usually start off as damaged goods who have affairs when they are married.  Generally it can be assumed that they at least have the possiibility of producing children.  And the reason Prince charles will be King is royal DNA so the idea.  There is a lot of division about CAmilla and if Charles was thinking of his duty more than his own situation, he would have married someone else or stayed single. if he stayed single and maintained a relationship with her, probably noone would be saying anything. And Chris feel free to voice your opinion but don't state that others don't have the right to offer differing opinions.  And as for your analysis of how politics works outside the US you might want to take a refresher course.

[Constantinople]

Well Ilya
    the point is that as a constitutional monarch we expect more than basic human behaviour when we are pahying the type of money that monarchs demand.  If  you want that type of head of state, go for a republic and you can save a lot of money.  Noone ever accused the Queen of anything like these types of things and everyone knows she is completely human.  When you are paying people to be  monarchs.  If the standard erodes enough you can get Ken the Truck driver to be King for a few years and then rotate it but when he starts picking his nose inparliament you might regret the lapse in standards.

[CHRISinUSA]

Nowhere did I suggest that you are not entitled to dislike Camilla, nor dislike the idea of her being the spouse of your future King.  Debate all you wish about the institution of monarchy; however as all members here are aware, personal attacks against any individual royals are not permitted on this forum.