But she doesn't affect the succession, since she has no royal blood in her family?

(And really, what the HECK does the royal family DO?! A lot of philanthropy and figure-heading symbolism, it seems to me. Is there any actual, real leadership?)

That page also says Camilla will not go higher than Princess Consort, even if Charles takes the throne.

Prince Philip didn't become King upon Liz' ascension because that would sound like he outranked Her Majesty. A Queen is always outranked by a King, so Camilla could become Queen Consort, like Elizabeth the Queen Mother. However, I thought there was some deal re: Charles marrying her, a divorcee, that depended on Camilla agreeing to only be Duchess of Cornwall if/when Charles becomes King. I wonder if the Queen will be as long-lived as her mother. I'd feel a little sorry for Charles if he never got the job he's trained his whole life for, but I doubt he's in any hurry to lose his mother.

It's a constitutional monarchy, Erin. They're mostly decoration, but I think they can have a strong diplomatic presence, which I will never play down. And they can exercise pressure just by opining, although I'm sure that backlashes as often as not.

eta:

Camilla agreeing to only be Duchess of Cornwall if/when Charles becomes King

Princess Consort.

in reality, all too often feedback was like "OMG, he didn't die giving that speech! 100%!!"

Is the subtext "Despite my best efforts"?

I know it's a constitutional monarchy, so it's pretty irrelevant, anyway, but since Prince Albert and Prince Philip were Princes in their own rights, and didn't become King upon marrying the monarch, it goes the same way for a woman, right?

According to Wikipedia, she will legally be Queen, but won't take the title. She'll be referred to as the Princess Consort.

When UK Royalty moves beyond that sort of thing it usually ends up in tears. Symbolism, ritual and subject for gossip is the proper function of British Royalty.

Hmm. From what I've looked at, it seems Princess Consort is where it's heading.

I don't discount symbolism or diplomatic presence; most of my English history comes from pre-Victoria, so my mind has all these Divine Right of King's spaces in it, and I feel a little sad for all the Kings and Queens afterwards.

I mean, YAY DEMOCRACY, but I'd get a little glum, looking at all my fabulous, albeit kinda whacko, ancestors and then looking at my crown and thinking "My great-great-great grandfather ruled the waves, and I get to open the stock exchange. Le sigh."

But thinking about it, the British monarchy is only lightly splashed with British blood now, no? Are they still Hanoverians? Hanoverites? Whatev.

Indeed, bt, that is ALWAYS the subtext. To be fair, my seniors (in general) were much better than my freshmen. But often, even with coaching and rubrics and examples, feedback was, shall we say, less than helpful.

I still loved them, though. Even when it was like cat-herding.

There's definitely a lot of German there. I forget the names of the family before they called themselves Windsor.

I'm a serious anti-monarchist, but I can't see the UK getting rid of the monarchy for at least a few generations. We're too fond of the status quo.

There's definitely a lot of German there. I forget the names of the family before they called themselves Windsor.

Saxe-Coburg-Goethe? t / high school history class half-remembered stuff