Posted on 03/23/2005 4:39:12 PM PST by NZerFromHK
WHAT??????????????
It has been stated I don't know how many times she will NOT be "Queen Camilla"
If and when Charles becomes King she will be "Princess Consort"........she will NEVER be Queen.
I should stress that there are a couple of mistakes in the article. Otherwise, the overview seems accurate:
1) Dependencies of and "Territories in Free Associations with" New Zealand like Niue, Tokelau, the Cook Islands, and External Territories of Australia like Christmas Islands, Norfolk Island also ahve the Queen as the head of state. The case for the Cook Island is even more complicated. The Queen as head of state of the Cook Islands derives her constitutional status by virtue of being the Queen of New Zealand, but if New Zealand becomes a republic the Cooks will decide independently if the Queen stays as their head of state even by all means they are still practically a dependent territory (they use NZ dollars, NZ is responsible for their defence and some foreign affairs, they have NZ citizenships) of New Zealand.
2) New Zealand still has a majority supporting the monarchy. I can't really say how it will go in the future, although the Times article is right taht republican sentiment is rising (probably not as fast as Dear Helen would have loved).
3) Fiji is contemplating of return to the monarchy with the Queen as head of state.
There is a loophole in the constitutional laws. We are not sure at this stage but it seems the will be nothing to stop Camilla automatically recognized as Queen consort.
It's like Yoko and the Beatles all over again.
fyi
Apparently she will assume the title of Queen automatically. I don't see why this has people so upset.
fyi
Ping!
I will admit I am not at all versed in British laws and also have not paid much attention to this.........so I will step back and cede to those, such as yourself, who are obviously far more knowlegeable than I.
Please understand, I meant no offense.
She won't be Queen, but she might be Best in Show.
I can understand there being some upset. Princess Diana was very much loved..........Charles was consorting with this woman while married.
However, I am but a mere mortal and a US, not British citizen - so I guess my opinion really doesn't amount to a whole hill of beans, does it? But it is nice to be able to state it (VBEG)
That picture is repulsive beyond words.
I've got a 12 year old mutt that would get that title first!!!!!
They make a wonderful couple doncha think?
Prince Chucky should just renounce the throne and pass it on to William. Thanks to modern medical technology, the queen probably has another decade or so of life left in her (longer if she takes after her mother, who lived to be over 100) which would put William in his early 30's when he took the crown. If the royal family in Britain is going to survive, it needs to shake off its reputation of being a stodgly old throwback and make itself relevant to younger Britons. Installing a king who will likely be pushing 70 when he ascends isn't the way to do that. Installing his younger son just might.
Heh, heh -- I would pay to avoid seeing Charles and Camilla in that state.
Actually, according to British law, a woman who marries a king is the queen, but a man who marries a queen is the prince consort. This goes back to the late 1500's, when Mary and Elizabeth were heading for the throne of England. The House of Lords feared that a foreign nobleman might marry the queen, depose her, and seize control of the country. How a lack of title was supposed to prevent this is beyond me.
Just be glad that we can't use embed tags on this site anymore. The only thing worse that nekkid Yoko is singing Yoko.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.