Commonwealth may renounce Queen Camilla - and the Crown

March 24, 2005

Times
By Richard Beeston, Roger Maynard and David Adams
Some of the sovereign countries who have the monarch as Head of State ‘want out’

THE confusion triggered by the Prince of Wales’s marriage to Camilla Parker Bowles could precipitate a new wave of republicanism across Britain’s former colonies and jeopardise the future monarch’s chances of becoming head of the Commonwealth.

As the debate rages over whether Mrs Parker Bowles will become Queen Camilla, the issue has caused deep concern among some of the 15 sovereign countries around the world who still recognise the British monarch as their head of state.

Joel Kibazo, spokesman for the Commonwealth Secretariat, which is prepared to offer legal and technical advice to its members on the constitutional implications of the marriage, said: “We understand that some of the states concerned do want to know what their options are.

“We do know that one or two want out.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,173-1538988,00.html

the roots of my founding fathers are. I read stuff like this and think, "eh, whatever."

Queen Camilla...universal health care...Queen Camilla...religious tolerance...Queen Camilla...freedom of expression. Nope, not feeling much of a concern here. Oh to live in a world where this is a government's most pressing problem!

I can only speak for here in Australia, but CamillaNews doesn't rate many mentions, and when it does, it's more for the entertainment level rather than ever being a Big Issue...

Possibly things like universal health care, religious tolerance and freedom of expression aren't 'pressing problems' here because despite the efforts of Howard and co. we've generally enjoyed those things, though the slow and deliberate dismantling of our public health system is suceeding unfortunately...

Violet...

You echoed my point.

Well I live in Commonwealth country and funny, I haven't heard much talk--jeez...wonder which two?

The UK should leave the Commonwealth out of their domestic politics...

against her becoming Queen too, even though I'm an American.
The poll was like 77% opposed to Camilla becoming Queen when I voted.

We have much worse problems over here.

Who should be the next king? Should Qn. Eliz. abdicate directly to one of her grandchildren and skip over Charles?

Who gives a *hit!

Well it may drive elements of the UK media into a frenzy but quite a lot of us Britons just find this subject extremely boring. As Camilla is most likely to end up as a royal consort, like Price Philip, not as queen I very much doubt whether the Commonwealth gives a toss. This story was run in the Murdoch controlled London Times and almost certainly reflects the republican views of the papers owner

and Charles kicked out on his A$$

Diana's ghost haunts them still!!!

Dag!!! Style her like they did Prince Phillip of Greece and before him, Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha: HRH Camilla, Princess Consort, not HM Queen Camilla if it makes that damn much of a difference. She'll never be Queen Regnant, she will never rule; she will not be "Queen Mother", but "Queen Dowager" upon the death of Charles--I'm sure there are no children to come of the union: therefore, she would not get the same compensation package from the government as she would if she was "Queen Mum".

The throne is provided for---in fact, they should make more noise over who William is sniffing in behind than Charles.

However, kings in the past have married and not crowned their wives, yet they were still called "Queen". To wit: Henry VIII only crowned Katharine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn as Queen Consort. Jane Seymour, Anne of Cleves, Kathryn Howard and Katherine Parr never were crowned, but were still called Queen.

Henrietta Maria married Charles I, but was not crowned queen consort because she was a Catholic.

Catharine of Braganza married King Charles II, but was not crowned for the same reason as Henrietta.

That is the precident upon which their case falls apart.

It's my understanding that was the only way Charles was going to be allowed to marry Camilla is if she definately would NOT become the Queen.

Later,

Seriously. Call me ignorant about world politics, but it seems like all these people do is show up at army hospitals in expensive clothes and wave at photographers.

thus keeping the UK's entire millinery industry afloat.

Not that I really give a fuck, but seriously?

gotta marry into Royalty or you're ousted.

Diana wasn't royalty, the Queen's mum wasn't royalty, Anne Boleyn wasn't royalty, Jane Seymour wasn't royalty.... you get the picture.

I think the issue here is twofold - she's a ~gasp~ divorcee and she's been his mistress (a term I hate but will use anyway) for a long time.

It's all nonsense anyway - I find it hard to beleive that anyone really cares.

but since they're not following it themselves (I wasn't too aware of this) then they're just a bunch of hypocrites. Who knows what all of them have done behind closed doors?:evilgrin:

It is all a bunch of bullshit.

I'm an American, but this is how it was explained to me last week. Camilla is a divorcee, and the Church of Englad prohibits divorcees from remarrying while their ex-spouse is still alive. Since Camilla's ex is still living, the marriage would be a "sin".

To devout Anglicans, this is akin to the Pope announcing that he's gay.

There's also a lot of people in England who dislike her for non-religious reasons. Diana was a very popular princess, and many people blame Camilla (who the prince was cheating with) for both her divorce and her eventual death. They are probably right on that too...if not for Camilla, Diana wouldn't have been divorced, wouldn't have been in that car in Paris, and would be sitting in Buckingham Palace waiting to ascend today.

Personally, I'm for a republic (like most thinking Australians), and
I would hope that the faintest possibility of "Queen Camilla" would
push a few more monarchists into the republican camp.

The whole way Diana was set up by Charles and Camilla was very
cynical - she was a bit of a dill, but she was little more than
a child when she married Charles, and unbelievably naive. She was
also very sweet and trusting, and deserved better treatment from
him. Charles and Camilla are a very tacky pair - the whole idea of
those two being set up above everybody else is rather sick, IMO.

... to clear the way for the next wife.

Such insolence will not be tolerated, the UK should immediately attack and subdue all such seditious speakers with the full force of its military might.