From the BBC today:
Prince Charles will marry his long-term partner Camilla Parker Bowles on 8 April, Clarence House says.
A civil ceremony will be held at Windsor Castle. Mrs Parker Bowles will take the title HRH Duchess of Cornwall.
When the Prince of Wales, 56, becomes King, 57-year-old Camilla will not be known as Queen Camilla but as the Princess Consort, Clarence House added.
The move will end years of speculation on a relationship which has spanned the decades since they first met in 1970.
...The marriage is likely to be a sensitive issue because Mrs Parker Bowles is divorced and her former husband is still alive.
If he became king, Charles would be the supreme governor of the Church of England and some Anglicans remain opposed to the remarriage of divorcees...
They do? I thought you were almost required to be a Gay Divorcee to get anywhere in the Church these days. And don't they know that it was founded on a divorce in the first place?
Anyway, the report goes on:
Last year, a poll indicated that more Britons support Prince Charles marrying Camilla Parker Bowles than oppose it.
Of those who responded to a Populus poll, 32% said they would support Charles if he remarried, while 29% were opposed.
However, most people - 38% - said they did not care, while 2% had no opinion.
It must be an odd life when you have to take public opinion polls into account when making personal romantic decisions.
There are lots of well-worn arguments for and against the Monarchy. But the only people who really suffer under it are the poor Royal sods themselves.
9 comments:
However, most people - 38% - said they did not care, while 2% had no opinion.Ummm--is this what people mean when they say "distinction without difference?"
I am tempted to start calling my wife, "HRH the Princess Consort." If I never post again, you'll know why.
Skipper:
And since when is 38% 'most people'?
Doesn't it have to be at least 51%?
Not the Beeb's finest hour.
David:
This bizarre title 'The Princess Consort' illustrates just how much the role of the Monarchy has changed.
'Queen Camilla' is unpalatable to most Britons, so they just make something else up. Constitution - what constitution?
You hear arguments that the Monarchy is a Bad Thing because it reinforces an ancient class system: the priveleged ruler and the oppressed subjects.
But the plain truth of the matter is that the Royals can't sneeze unless popular opinion permits it.
There's no doubt about who are the masters, and who the servants.
(I suspect that's true in your house, too?)
1. You suspect correctly.
2. I can't even think the phrase "Queen Camilla" without then thinking "Queen Camillamilla", which I find unaccountably attractive.
3. Haven't the various Phillips been Prince Consorts, giving the whole thing that patina of age and tradition that the British always prefer to actual age and tradition?
Andrew:
Well, I was trying to determine what distinguishes "... did not care ..." from "... no opinion."
Andrew:
Ooops. Never mind. I misread your post, somehow missing the glaringly obvious.
David:
I think Victoria's Albert was a 'prince consort'. I've not heard the term used for the current Duke of Edinburgh (Philip) but you might be right.
The sovereign's wives are always Queens though, I think...Oh, who cares anyway?
Come on, Peter. Everyone knows that the royals are far more interesting to the colonials than to the British public.
If you live in Paris you don't go and visit the Eiffel Tower every day...
Post a Comment