Says the Daily Mail.
Apparently, she would wish instead to be known as something called a ‘princess consort’.
I sincerely hope she’s joking. And even if she’s not, I don’t really think there is much she can do about it. We are not that enthusiastic about morganatic marriages in this country, surely she should know that. When Charles becomes King, she should become Queen. That should be the end of that.
Perhaps she is worried about public opinion. However, I don’t think that is sufficient grounds for her to forsake her rightful title. In any case, the Telegraph reports that the public is slowly coming round to the idea of a ‘Queen Camilla’. But even if that were not so, that should not, on its own, bar her from taking what is legally hers.
July 17th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Perhaps she could change her name to something more, how do I put it, ‘queen-like’. Queen Camilla just doesn’t sound right. I wonder what her middle name is.
July 18th, 2007 at 8:49 am
She’s a canny lady Bel, and this bit of PR proves it.
By making statements like this she signals the public that she will be a reluctant queen, which will win her respect from the British public (who like that sort of thing) and quell the vitriol of her detractors.
Now we’re all supposed to say “but you have got to be Queen, what about poor Charlie?”. Good PR.
July 18th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Not sure she can be Queen, Bel.
Didn’t the fact that it was a civil service have some effect on that?
I might be wrong.
I have this suspicion that royal weddings have to be in churches.