Posted on 11/19/2010 4:55:59 PM PST by NormsRevenge
LONDON – Prince Charles has reopened a sensitive debate in Britain by suggesting his wife Camilla may take the title of queen when he becomes monarch. The comments came in an interview with U.S. network NBC recorded in August and due to be broadcast later Friday.
Extracts were aired on British television and received high attention in the week Charles' son Prince William — who is second in line to the throne — announced his engagement to Kate Middleton.
Camilla legally will be queen if Charles takes the throne, but when the couple married in 2005 officials said she planned to adopt the title Princess Consort rather than the more traditional Queen Consort.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
The correct answer to this question, is that Camilla would be considered Charles’ consort. I sincerely doubt that Charles would risk the backlash should he proclaim her ‘Queen’.
There is historical precedent as well for this approach, particularly wrt second marriages.
Well that answers both questions. Thank you.
Well at least Prince Harry kicked some Muslims’ ass last year.
The Queen is 85, the Prince is 62. He is likely to outlive her.
Don’t know about a pending dental visit . . .
however, if half the things rumored about him are true, and he’s unrepentant . . . he’s headed for much warmer quarters than he’s used to.
It’s conceivable he did some right things with his sons.
However, I attribute the good in his sons to:
1. Diana’s lavishly loving them the early critical years of their lives.
2. Charles having enough wits to focus more on them after Diana’s death.
He’s also been a horrid model for them in many ways. Their qualities are IN SPITE OF such stuff rather than because of such stuff.
He seems to open his yap and stick big feet in with some regularity.
That’s encouraging to read . . .
His Islamic stuff is mystifyingly bone-headed, to me.
And some of his other obtuseness seems to lack the kind of awareness I’d expect from someone who should be as well informed as he should be.
Naturalman, you convinced me the last time we had this little chat, so now I am actually explaining to some of my countrymen here that he is not completely the way he is pictured in the press. Thanks for setting people straight. (I still think that people feel he was harder on Diana than she was on him because of the age difference - one would expect more honesty and a better example from him.)
True enough.
Yet, his own public statements over the years have been dreadful enough in his own right.
I’m not impressed with:
1. His advocacy and support of authentic Christianity.
2. His quisling like assertions about Islam.
3. His globalist sorts of assertions.
4. The pride competetion and other immaturities between he and Diana well before the divorce etc.
5. He has, evidently, done some wise and good things regarding his holdings and the ‘serfs’ connected with his holdings.
6. He has, on occasion, seemed to be a good sport in a lot of strange situations.
The Hanoverians inherited the throne in 1714 because of their protestant Scottish (Stuart) lineage. George I was the grandson of Princess Elizabeth of Hanover and the Palatinate, and she was Scottish and the daughter of James VI of Scotland/James I of England, Wales and Ireland.
Add to that the Scottish blood of the Queen Mum, and even Diana. As well as English, Welsh and Irish blood.
They are not taking over, have not taken over or will ever take over.
Please get that.
Nope, because the first thing you did after the Revolution was offer Washington the chance to be King of America.
He isnt a quisling about Islam.
People in America get caught up in the ‘muzzy stuff’ and ignore that he equally has a fascination for Sikhism, Hinduism, Buddhism and religion in general.
He isnt a quisling Muslim lover, just someone who deeply believes in the power of religion and that faith in whichever faith one finds peace is a good thing.
Yes, you hate the monarchy so much that you offered an American monarchy to George Washington.
Well, you know what ‘literature’ to stop even glancing at...
Charles may have his faults and then some, but he isnt gay.
Hmmm, I can remember as a child in the 1970’s/early 80’s reading how Britain would be 25-50% black by 2020. And here we are in 2010 the entire ethnic British population is about 8%. Thats everyone without a white face, inc non white foreigners and mixed race.
Sorry, but I tend to ignore these studies. Like other studies in other fields, they all contradict each other and give different numbers.
Actually Charles’s attacks on modern architecture are and have been deeply popular with the British public for 20 years, even to those who dislike him.
On architecture, imo he is correct. The destruction of British architecture in the fab-groovy-modern 60’s is now seen as a cultural disgrace and what we lost was horrendous, esp as we replaced them with a nation of soulless concrete.
Hmmmmmm
What do I know.
He still leaves me uncomfortable on all those scores.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.