Should Camilla become Queen?

Should Camilla become Queen?

NO: George Kerevan

The arcane laws and customs which explain why we should oppose Camilla as Consort

FORGET everything you’ve heard about Ms Camilla Shand - previously Mrs Parker Bowles - not wanting the title of Queen Consort. For a start, according to Blackstone’s, the traditional authority on British constitutional law, the Queen Consort gets many perks.

For instance, she is exempt from road tolls, which might come in very handy getting to the Palace of Holyroodhouse should Edinburgh City Council ever manage to introduce congestion charges.

Another bonus is that any whale caught in British waters automatically belongs to the King, but he has to give the tail end to his Queen Consort. The Queen Consort, unlike ordinary women, has special protection under the law: it is high treason to "violate or defile" her person, were you so minded.

The job has lost some of its earlier drawbacks. Henry VIII made it treason for any woman who was not a virgin to marry the king "without informing him thereof". Henry had been caught out that way before. However, Charles is unlikely to find any surprises on his wedding night.

There’s a method in this medley of arcane laws and customs, and it relates to why we should be opposed to Camilla Shand being accorded a queenly title. Contrary to the little games being played at Clarence House, implying the title was mere window-dressing that could be dispensed with at will, the role of Queen Consort has a vast body of constitutional law behind it.

Alone of all the females in the land, before women were afforded equal status in the 20th century, she had legal recognition and protection. This was to ensure the safety of her person as the bearer of the heirs to the succession, and to protect her children.

The point being the Queen Consort is far from a negligible post - politically, culturally and socially. It always has been so; Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother was the power behind George VI’s throne. So we should be careful about who holds the title.

In that regard, Ms Shand is wanting in many respects - in selfishness, in truthfulness and perhaps most importantly, in having any sense of how the rest of us live now. Just when the Windsors desperately need fresh blood that has some experience of the modern world, we get another member of the Green Welly brigade.

True, a Queen Consort retains no obvious political powers under our constitutional monarchy. Those reside only in the sovereign. Yet the very point of a constitutional monarchy is not its formal powers but its symbolic ones. In particular, its primary purpose is to be the focal point of national unity.

But one recent opinion poll suggested that barely 7 per cent of us want Ms Shand as Queen Consort. How does that help national unity?

The situation is even worse in places like Australia, where the future of the monarchy hangs by a thread. Remember, if the constitutional monarchy falls into disrepute, the real political mice will come out to play.

We should know by now in the 21st century that image matters more than substance. Just think of Diana, that consummate media manipulator. Then ask yourself which woman in Charles’s mnage trois has gotten her own way?

Camilla has always moved by stealth. Her next step is to be Queen Consort, hence the little subterfuge regarding the title to keep the matter off the agenda until Charles gets the crown on his head - which could be 20 years from now when St Diana has long been forgotten.

Anyone who knows anything about constitutional law knows the special legal significance of the Queen Consort. To deprive Camilla of that designation will certainly require legislation. But so what?

Let us put Charles and Camilla to the test. I am sure if they put the request formally to Parliament and the Commonwealth to let her set aside the consort title, the legislation could go through in a day.

There is an important precedent in denying Ms Shand the official title of Queen Consort. We need look no further than Charles’s father, the Duke of Edinburgh. Though no-one ever notices, Philip is not in fact the Prince Consort, as was Queen Victoria’s husband, Prince Albert (the title "King Consort" never existed in British law).

When Elizabeth married Philip, she wanted him to be Prince Consort. But public opinion was wary of Philip’s German relations, so he had to make do with his dukedom. Philip was not even a British prince until 1957, when Elizabeth made him one as a consolation prize for not being the Prince Consort from day one.

Philip is not officially consort, because the public would not accept it. The same should hold true for Camilla.

YES: Jennie Bond

I had always understood that a King’s wife is Queen - and legislation is required to stop it

SMUG as it may sound, it was no surprise to me to be told that Camilla Parker Bowles will, after all, be entitled to call herself Queen when her husband-to-be takes the throne. I had always understood that a King’s wife is automatically Queen - and that legislation would be required to prevent it.

The fact that Camilla has so pointedly said that she would prefer to be known as Duchess of Cornwall seems to have cut little ice with the public. The shock-horror debate about whether she could ever be accepted as Queen is in full cry.

Well, let’s add a little fuel to the fire. The truth is that, in strict legal terms, Camilla will also become Princess of Wales when she marries her prince. Only a madwoman would contemplate usurping Diana’s title - and the idea has not even been mooted. But the titles come with the job. Under current law, they will be Camilla’s by right. She has volunteered not to use them.

Once again, the true position has been masked and muddled by the Palace. If they had made it clear on the day of the wedding announcement that Camilla had willingly - even nobly - turned down the chance to be Queen, people might have thought better of her. As it is, we have another right-Royal mess with Palace officials left looking bemused about the business they are paid to conduct.

The question I have asked time and again at speaking venues around the country is: "Why shouldn’t Camilla be Queen?" No-one has given me a reasonable answer.

"We don’t like her name" has been a constant complaint.

Give me strength! There have been queens called Edith and Judith, Matilda and Adelaide. Why not Camilla?

"She’s ugly!" they say.

In fact, she’s far from ugly. In the flesh, Camilla is quite petite, with clear skin and pretty eyes. She’s happiest in a pair of Wellington boots but is getting quite adept at turning on the glamour.

"Well, Prince Philip isn’t King - why should she be Queen?" Another frequent argument.

The answer is that, in our sexist society, kings take precedence over queens. So if a blood-line Queen, such as Elizabeth, made her husband King - he would be the boss. But a King’s wife is always Queen. She doesn’t rule and is never the monarch, but she gets the title.

Then we come to the nitty-gritty of the debate. "That woman ruined Diana’s life. She’s an adulteress."

Yes - and no doubt she should be burned at the stake! What century are we living in? How many of us have made a complete mess of our private lives? How many have been unfaithful, disloyal and duplicitous? How many of us are in second marriages - even third or fourth - and have accepted the status and spoils that come with each partner?

Camilla committed adultery, Charles committed adultery. And so, when it comes to it, did Diana. Several times.

I knew and liked the princess. Her marriage was a tragedy, her death an even bigger one. But she herself once told me: "Do you know, I think we should all accept that Camilla always has been and always will be the love of Charles’s life. And I think she’s been loyal and discreet - and perhaps she deserves some form of recognition." I don’t know what she meant - she refused to expand on it. But if Diana herself had come to accept the depth of the love between Charles and Camilla - shouldn’t we? Diana has gone. Nothing will bring her back, and it is surely now time to forgive - if not to forget.

I doubt if any government will move to bring in a law banning Camilla from being Queen. And, in my view, to do so would be unnecessarily vindictive. Do we really require her to walk around in a hair shirt, thumping her chest and crying "Mea culpa"?

The fact is that on 8 April, Camilla will become a bona fide member of the Royal Family. She is to be made HRH, which automatically makes her the second most senior female Royal. When the Queen dies, Camilla will be the top woman - no matter whether she’s called Princess Consort or Queen.

I am not wedded to the idea of retaining the monarchy. In fact, in many ways, I think it would be kinder to set both them and us free. However, if we are going to have a King Charles, I think he will be a far better king with the woman he loves not only at his side, but as his queen. Anything other than that is demeaning to Camilla, to Charles and to our own generosity of spirit.

Jennie Bond is a former BBC Royal correspondent

YOUR VIEWS

Bedrock of betrayal

I HAVE read the views of Michael Thornton, royal biographer, and totally support him. Charles and Camilla’s relationship is built on a bedrock of betrayal and manipulation. Their behaviour demeans the monarchy and now the state and church want to ignore this fact and pave the way for them to be future King and Queen.

We are not stupid and see the manipulation of this event for what it is. As Thornton says "Camilla Parker Bowles is one mistake too far." As for King Charles lll and Queen Camilla, to quote Lady Thatcher on another topic: "No, no and no again."

Thornton reports he and his research team have interviewed 5,000 people in the United Kingdom and one of the results is that 79 per cent want Charles to stand down from the succession and retire into private life.

I fully agree and hope there will be action taken on this.

AILEEN LINDSAY

Ditch the monarchy

No, Camilla should not become Queen and nor should anybody else, because it’s now time to pension the monarchy off and bring in a low-key, non-political president.

SIMON SHEARER

Carfrae Road, Edinburgh

Storm in a teacup

There is always going to be a hard core of Diana fanatics who are opposed to the marriage and nothing is ever going to change their opinions on this. But anyone under the age of 35 sees no obstacle to it. They just wonder why they haven’t got on with it sooner. It’s a storm in a teacup.

This is not a morganatic marriage. All this stuff about Commonweath countries wanting out is nonsense - the governments have not said they want out.

BOB HOUSON

Royalty magazine, London

Saddened by princes

Born a Scot and now a resident of Canada, I am against Camilla Parker Bowles becoming Queen. I do not belive her protests that she does not want the title. I am saddened that William (a witness yet!) and Harry will attend this wedding. I thought they would have more respect for their mother’s memory. They must surely know how much Diana hated this awful woman.

BETTY HOWELL

Ontario, Canada

Not worthy of title

As a person who came through the bombing in Manchester aged four on Christmas Day 1940, I feel this has gone far enough. Why? Well, not too long after that event, Buck House was hit by the Germans. The then Queen came out with the late King to look at the damage they had done - not much - but the Queen said the immortal words "Now I can look the Eastenders in the eye."

For (Camilla) to be called like that great lady, the lunatics have really taken over the asylum.

BRIAN GRUNDY

Perth

Plan already in place

I believe that Camilla will marry Charles, insisting that she doesn’t want to be addressed as "Queen Camilla", to avoid more animosity from the public. Later, she will adopt the title because "it is the law". My belief is this is already the plan.

FLO REMING

It's not an issue

Who cares? The monarchy is an outdated and obsolete institution which should be abolished. No-one should be Queen, or King. They should be allowed to live their lives as ordinary people.

MALCOLM WYLIE

Give up the throne

Charles should stop being a spoiled brat and marry his woman but give up the throne. There is nothing more to say.

TILDA BRADLEY

Absolutely not

I see that some people must be sitting on their computers full-time supporting this woman.

The fact is no-one other than her family and the Royals want her. She should be sent off to a deserted island and left. No, she should not be Queen!

GAIL CAMERON-EMERY

Totally unworthy

Not only should Mrs Parker Bowles never be Queen, but Prince Charles should never be King. In fact, the whole sordid incident - which was prefaced by Charles’ selfish boast that he would not only have "the throne, but Camilla too" - damns both of them as totally unworthy.

Assuming that we shall not have the sane option of becoming a republic, the least that we should demand is that Prince William should become King when the Queen herself either dies or abdicates.

JOHN THORPE

New Luce, Wigtownshire

No-one's business

On a personal note, it is no-one else’s business if Charles and Camilla want to marry. However, what gives Charles the right to divorce and remarry (a divorcee!) and retain his right to the throne? No-one has changed the legislation or traditions requiring heirs to abdicate in this position so why should he be allowed to flout our laws and traditions?

How can he be head of the church when it does not condone divorce? Charles should be told to choose the throne or Camilla and stop being allowed to do his own thing. The public needs to make the monarchy listen. How is it Camilla will be allowed the title HRH when Diana, the mother of the future king, had hers stripped?

JILL GRIERSON

Fall of the church

It is disappointing to see Charles and Camilla making plans to become King and Queen. The Queen’s intention to stop Charles renouncing the throne, if his mistress was not accepted, proves that Diana was right.

The Archbishop’s position is unforgiveable; I foresee the fall of the Anglican Church. Once again, it is at the service of the monarch; King Henry created it, Charles will bring it down.

It is important to research the American tabloids. I found an article stating why Camilla was unable to become Queen 35 years ago because of her multiple lovers; quite frankly, it was repulsive.

It is also repulsive to read that the prince had telephoned Camilla to complain about the poor sexual performance of Diana, referring to her as being as knowledgeable as a kindergarten teacher. These two drove Diana to adultery, and it was premeditated.

To see William and Harry side up with the prince, just because the prince has approved the two girlfriends, it is quite frankly the last action I expected. It is a give and take; you allow me my mistress, I allow you your girls. After all, what is love at 20?

Regarding Camilla, she will be Queen unless you stand up at the embarrassment. Diana’s struggle in life and death was always about this fact. Shame on the British press. Help Diana - it is never too late.

SOPHIA

Immoral couple

From now on, I will vote Scottish Nationalist. How can anyone respect this ugly, immoral couple as head of state. Pity the poor Queen, who has always done her duty with grace and humility.

JM WILSON

Shame on William

No, Camilla definitely should not become Queen. Why is she marrying Charles if she says she is so against being Queen? Charles should abdicate if he insists on marrying this woman. He should abdicate anyway because of the disgrace he has brought to the Royal Family.

William should be ashamed of himself for having anything to do with this "marriage". I liked William. I thought he was his mother’s son.

Now I have changed my mind and realise that he is just like the rest of them.

GILL HULME

Sound advice

As a Scot who has lived abroad for the last 24 years and watched the sad decline of the Royal Family in that time, I find it ludicrous that anyone could conceive of Mrs Parker Bowles as Queen!

I have never met the woman, however I have met and spent time with one of her soon to be brother-in-laws, (albeit many years ago), he said that it wasn’t what you did as a Royal, rather the way it would be perceived.

Sound advice.

DONALD KINLOCH