Queen Camilla

Charles has a right to an opinion, just as any of us have, and a right to express that verbally or in a letter if he wants to. What he does not have is any right to expect his opinion to be taken as an instruction to the government of the day, and I haven't seen any evidence that he has assumed that he has.
When he is king, he will have to be as neutral as his mother is now, whatever his private wishes. He is bright enough to realise that and Camilla is bright enough and diplomatic enough to accept whatever official title she ends up with.

" The matter is decided by royal prerogative rather than Parliament; in other words, King Charles would have the sole authority over whether his wife would be known as Queen Camilla. Legally, Camilla would automatically become queen if Prince Charles becomes king, but it’s not that simple. A statement from Clarence House, the official London residence of Prince Charles and Camilla, issued on the day they married announced that Camilla would be known as princess consort in the event of Charles’s accession to the throne." This was from an article a few years ago. I guess if PC thinks public more sympathetic now that he may make his wife queen. I do think they are probably 'soulmates' 9though that image is rather alarming for me!) and should have married each other years ago and avoided all that the hoo haa with Diana.

He will probably take the temperature of public opinion when the time comes and act accordingly, penstemmon

Just a few of Charles'attempts to interfere, and I think I explained in my comments that 'above his station' means he is unelected and therefore does not possess the legal authority to influence or change government policy. I agree he has a right to an opinion but that is all.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-charles/9613127/Why-the-Prince-of-Wales-cannot-stop-being-an-interfering-busybody.html

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2015/jun/04/second-batch-of-prince-charles-black-spider-memos-to-be-published-live

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28066081

If you agree he has a right to his opinion Tallulah why are you so intent on regurgitating old links? And WTF takes any notice of the Guardian anyway?

And he has expressed his opinion, just as we all can.

Willsmadnan, sorry but could you explain what WTF means please? I don't think you managed to get my whole post, there were extracts not just from the Guardian but from the BBC and the Telegraph also.

It stands for What the Fuck, Tallulah57 - and yes, it is permissible to swear on GN.

....as long as it's done in a ladylike way of course.

And I've just realised it was Who in this case, not What - but I'm sure Tallulah got the gist...

willsmadgran The Guardian link was a pretty straightforward factual report not an editorial.
It would seem that a lot of people do respect the Guardian. Though I can see why some people feel upset by its reporting
www.theguardian.com/media/2016/dec/07/guardian-scoops-three-prizes-at-british-journalism-awards

Or you could read it as What or Who The Flip? if you have a delicate constitution like me who couldn't really give a flip what we call Camilla - and it may never happen because the Queen could go on until she's about 120 by the looks of it

Oh dear, what role models for our younger generation!

Who?
Charles, Camilla, The Queen, - or Gransnetters?

I think most of acronyms for naughty words have been lifted from Mumsnet

Wasn't it odd that neither the Queen nor the Duke of Edinburgh attended Charles and Camilla's wedding? They probably disapproved completely and were making a statement. I'm sure they are the best of friends nowadays though.
I just hope the Queen goes on for a good many years yet - her mother was 101, wasn't she?

They were both at the service afterwards in the Windsor Castle chapel and looked perfectly happy about it as I recall. I don't think the Queen ever attend register office weddings.

They don't attend registry office marriages but did attend the service of blessing which followed.

Well Penstemman the Daily Fail won an award for journalism this year
www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article-4318338/Daily-Mail-crowned-Newspaper-Year-Press-Oscars.html

So much for British newspapers!
I can't understand why there is so much Charles and Camilla bashing on this site. I would far rather have a monarch who noticeably has the interest of the country at heart rather than the bland monarchy of the past 60 years. The Opening of Parliament has become a farce with the Queen reading a speech in which she has absolutely no interest, and being subjected by successive governments, to entertaining, with all the accompanying pomp and ceremony, some of the most repulsive
dictators on the planet. I just hope Charles shows some moral courage and refuses to indulge in these ridiculous pantomimes