Wonder if the reception hall will be decorated with tampons?

Rudey, I think the reason he picked the wench-like Camilla is because he's uncomfortable being around anyone more attractive than himself who would take the spotlight away from him. He was obviously jealous of Diana.

Diana would have been Queen CONSORT, not Queen REGNANT. The former is for those who marry into royalty; the latter is for those with hereditary ties to the throne.

So, yes...Diana would have been a Queen.

I had always heard that Edward, in part, abdicated because of pressure due to his being sympathetic to the Nazis. Marrying a Catholic was also a factor--but not the major issue.

I would have answered earlier, but I am at work.

According to Burke's Peerage, Queen Elizabeth (the Queen Mother) was a Queen Consort:

"The Queen Mother's remarkable life spanned over a century, a period of immense change. Having married The Duke of York (Prince Albert Frederick Arthur George, later King George VI), The King and Queen's second son on the 26th April 1923 in Westminster Abbey, she found herself Queen Consort on the abdication of King Edward VIII in 1936."
Source

That's just one case that I've had the time to explore. I'll be happy to give you the benefit of the doubt that we were talking about different definitions of "Queen".

Princess Michael of Kent, not born a royal, has to use her husband's name, and is not Princess Christina. Sarah Ferguson was granted the use of Duchess of York, and could never have been styled Princess Andrew, for the same reason.

Yeah, this has been all over the news here this afternoon. Charles and Camilla can't be married in a Church of England ceremony because she's a divorcee (he's divorced as well but being a widower supercedes that) who's ex-husband is still alive. They're being married in a civil ceremony and then the Archbishop of Canterbury will bless them. The latest controversy is whether, once Charles becomes king, and therefore head of the Church of England, the Anglicans will support his non-Church marriage.

Upon receipt of the throne, Charles will be king, Camilla will be HRH Princess Consort (yes, she does get the HRH). There were early reports of her getting a different Duchess title, but that seemed sticky when it came to inheritance.

As far as titles go, had Diana still been married to Charles and still alive when he took the throne, she would have been Queen Consort (like the Queen Mother before her). If there's a female HRM Queen, her husband retains the title of Prince so that he can't take the crown after she dies.

I don't really care one way or the other - if they're happy, AND his sons are happy, great. But for now, long live the Queen. :)

Actually, Edward VIII renounced the throne due to political pressure arising from societal norms of the early 1930s, not due to any constitutional convention requiring him to do so. Mrs. Simpson was not Catholic but was divorced and this was considered much differently in those days.

As to the question of whether one not born a princess can be a queen there is no British constitutional convention which precludes this. Her late Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother was Lady Bows-Lyon, daughter of an Earl prior to her marriage to the future George VI. By tradition the wife of the king normally, but not always, becomes Queen consort (as opposed to the current soverign who is Queen regnant). The husband of a Queen regnant is normally titled as Prince consort and given rank as a royal duke if not already one in his own right. Albert of Saxe Coburg Gotha was a german prince and duke prior to his marriage to Victoria and was subsequently created a Prince of the United Kingdom. If Diana, Princess of Wales were still alive and still married to Prince Charles at the time of his acsession then she would have become queen consort.

The decision to title Camilla as Princess Consort is rather more political than constitutionally mandated. As to Prince Charles' decision to marry her, I think it reflects well on him to choose a person of demonstrable wit, depth, and maturity rather than just superficial attractiveness. I have met her through her son who was a friend of my cousin while they were at university. I was most impressed with her as a lady of great charm and deep intelligence. I wish them both great happiness.

Ooh, my mom's going to have a field day when all the conspiracies are dragged up again...

And FYI, Camilla will be HRH the Duchess of Cornwall, as Charles' secondary title is Duke of Cornwall. CNN's got some cross-linked articles about the whole thing here that do a pretty good job of explaining everything.

Ditto for Queen Elizabeth II's husband, who was Prince Philip of Greece before being granted the title Duke of Edinburgh when he married. He was the first in line to pledge his allegiance to the Queen at her coronation in 1952.

Wouldn't be surprised if Camilla gets some Royal title such as Duchess of Cornwall (her husband-to-be is already the reigning Duke of Cornwall, it came with the title of Prince of Wales) as a wedding-day present from the Queen. Since no pups are expected from the marriage, the title will die off when Camilla passes on.

ETA: -duh!- I shoulda read bekibug's post above before posting, as she already mentioned it!

Re: Charles and Camilla to Marry
 

My response is...it is about friggin' time. It has been apparent that the two of them *really* love each other and should have married in the early 1970's when they first met instead of letting all that "tradition" keep them apart.

I felt very sorry for Diana. It must have been terribly hard to be married to man who loved someone else...and I felt bad for Charles to be married to someone he didn't really love all for the sake of appearances. They were just trapped in the gilded world they lived. Even paradise has its price.

The divorce issues cracks me up....Henry VIII founded the Anglican church in protest to Rome (he dissolved abbies and monasteries after learning of ML's 95 Theses and Wittenberg...just the push he needed), with only *one* of the issues being he wanted to divorce his wife and Rome said "NO". BUT divorce was a grinding issue nonetheless, I find it laughable that the Head of the Anglican church (royal) can't be divorced now ;)...talk about a turn around in happenings ;).

Congrats and about time to Charles and Camilla!

i have mixed emotions on this. while it is great that they are getting married, it sucks that they had to wait so long...and that someone had to get hurt. plus, i feel badly for the boys. i mean their father had been having an affair with this woman for years...and their mom died. it just seems to be too much to handle.

An interesting little tidbit is that Diana actually had a more English royal pedigree than Charles, whose family is actually of German descent.
Diana had more Kings of England in her bloodline than the Queen.
Since WWI the House of Windsor has suppressed its Teutonic bloodlines and when Edward VIII was friendly to the Nazis he and Wallis Simpson, the thrice divorced Protestant were banished to the Bahamas in an attempt to diminish their presence during the war, when any and all connections to Germany would have been deeply embarassing.

Philip and Elizabeth are also distantly related, by the way. He is a Mountbatten, born in Greece but of German descent as well.

What a sad charade for Charles and Camilla, and the unfortunate and also deceased Princess of Wales.

Some say that Camilla fulfilled in Charles a sense of love from a woman who mothered him in some ways. His own Mother was distant and cold, and his Father was quite simply a son of a bitch who treated Charles horribly. To Charle's credit, his relationship with his sons is far better than with his Father.

¡UPDATE!

The BBC has reported that it might not be legal for C&C to marry in a civil ceremony because of an old law that bars royals from having them.

This Is London has the article.

/update

Wow, they're really trying to dig up all they can to prevent this marriage.

Haha I'm surprised no one else got that one...that was way back when Dana Carvey was funny....

When Princess Anne, the Princess Royal and divorcee, married Commodore Tim Laurence, they bypassed that by getting married in Scotland. Still part of the UK, but not England. That did not remove her from the Royal Succession (I just checked to be sure).

.:Update, again:.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe....ap/index.html

Apparently, Camilla can potentially legally become queen someday, even though Charles' PR office has said that she would remain as HRH the Princess Consort when he ascends to the throne.

"The Department for Constitutional Affairs confirmed that interpretation, saying that legislation would be required to deny Parker Bowles the title of queen. Similar legislation apparently would be required in more than a dozen countries -- such as Australia, Jamaica and Canada -- in which the British sovereign is the head of state."