Ctbarnes From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3491 posts, RR: 49
Reply 4, posted (13 years 1 month 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 974 times:
"Queen Consort" was her official title, as she was married to the monarch, but was not head of state in her own right. That being said, she wielded exrordinary power "behind the throne" giving the shy, brooding George VI the courage needed to lead the nation during the war.
The customer isn't a moron, she is your wife -David Ogilvy
Jaspike From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2008, 1 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (13 years 1 month 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 972 times:
She was only Queen because her husband was King..you knew what I meant!
Saintsman: The rumour is that she will do it after her Golden Jubiliee Year. She probably will because her sister & mum have both died and she probably wants Charles to have a go at being the Monarch before it's handed over to William.
Mcdougald From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (13 years 1 month 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 970 times:
It's largely traditional: Kings' wives are normally queens, but queens' husbands are normally princes. But I doubt this rule would apply if Charles married Camilla Parker-Bowles: public opinion, though more accepting of Camilla than in the past, is still cool toward her; and she doesn't seem to enjoy the spotlight.
Diana would have become Queen Diana if Charles had become King Charles III while they were still married.
Hepkat From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 2341 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (13 years 1 month 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 942 times:
RT, the Queen Mum was queen but not monarch, there's a clear difference. If the monarch's a king, he MAY make his wife queen, but she would not have any power as monarch. If the monarch's a queen, she will most likely make her husband prince (or even duke), as she's the monarch, and would not elevate her spouse above her. Diana would have been queen, but only as consort to the king, i.e, wife to the monarch, Charles, a position similar to the Queen Mum's. Camilla can never marry Charles, muchless become queen if Charles becomes king, because as king, Charles also becomes sworn head of the Church of England, which forbids remarriage after divorce. I believe he will either have to remain a bachelor king, or if he really wants to marry her, abdicate the throne in favor of William.
Then again, Charles may never become King, as Queen Elizabeth II, even in her seventies, shows no sign of slowing down, and if her mother's any indication, Charles might very well die waiting for the throne.
Yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16436 posts, RR: 55
Reply 12, posted (13 years 1 month 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 898 times:
Charles has been porking Camilla on & off for 30 years. They're f**k buddies.
Diana was nothing more than a blond uterus for the royal family. Had Diana lived, she would never have become Queen since she had already split with Charles. Charles would have become King.....but there would have been no Queen. Unless you count his brother Edward, but that's a different story!
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
OzarkD9S From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5362 posts, RR: 21
Reply 13, posted (13 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 893 times:
Charles' 2nd middle name is Arthur, it is rumored that he has his lovers call him Arthur in bed, and wants to be known as King Arthur I upon his ascension to the throne.
Could you imagine a less deserving creature to resurrect the "King Arthur" moniker? Gawd....