Anglophiles must be really confused right now...

[kickaha]

On the one hand, there's going to be a veritable glut of British royalty press in the next few months.

On the other hand, it's Camilla.

How to react, how *TO* react.... poor dears.

Comments

Re: I read about it on another forum.

[chang-o.livejournal.com]

Camilla will only ever be the "Princess-Consort"- not a queen nor a princess proper. :) Fitting since she has been Charles' consort all this time anyway. I don't particularly follow the British Royal stuff, but I love England. :) Not all Anglophiles give a flip about the Royals. ;)

Re: I read about it on another forum.

[byrdie.livejournal.com]

The "Princess-Consort" title is the one the people on the other forum were flipping out over. That and "Duchess of Cornwall" or whatever it was.

I'm certain they'd have been foaming if she had a chance at being titled Queen.

Re: I read about it on another forum.

[gwywnnydd.livejournal.com]

Well, see, that's why there's been controversy all this time. There *was*, until this official announcement, the possibility that Charles would try to make her his queen. A lot of the vitriol towards her stemmed from the perception that she broke up Charles and Di, and Di walked on water and kept the sun in her back pocket as far as the average Briton was concerned. *Anything* that caused her distress was evil :).
This is the best possible outcome, that I can see. She doesn't get the royal title, which in turn doesn't throw the succession into question. Charles and Camilla don't have to continue 'living in sin', and by making a public announcement the Throne has made it's opinion known.
And yes, your earlier assessment is correct. From Charles, it would go to William, then Harry, then Andrew, then Andrew's two girls, then Edward. I don't think Edward has spawned yet, but if so then his kids would be after him. Then it gets into cousins of Elizabeth, and such.

Di walking on water.

[byrdie.livejournal.com]

Okay, now that confuses me. I remember around the time of her death that there were reporters in England tisking over the hoopla made of her funeral. Depending on who you ask, she was actually quite reviled there: the commoner who couldn't keep Charles happy, out on a nude beach, having spent a fair amount of her time avoiding the press, talking herself down (calling herself stupid, etc.), yedda yedda.

This was apparently why the royal family hadn't planned a big, splashy funeral for her -- she and Charles were divorced, and they figured that no one in the public had really cried over it. I recall hearing a snippet of one of the British news achors talking about how hypocritical the whole gala was. Indeed, I learned far more about all of her charity work and her deep friendship with Elton John and ... um -- a designer who died before she did -- after her death than I'd heard about before it happened.

So, from what little I've been able to piece together, it looks like there was a sharp 180 when Diana died, and people went from politely ignoring Camilla to villifying her.

As to the Queen vs. Princess-Consort thing, I'm still not sure of why it matters. Does the royal family actually hold any power anymore, or is it -- as I've been hearing -- purely ceremonial? It seems to me that the only reason to keep Camilla out of the running for Queen is that Diana died too early and it damaged Camilla's popularity ratings. I'm douting that this is international politics and would be surprised it if was even legally a national political issue -- it sounds more like social politicing to me.