Asphalt_World wrote:
Yes but I remember this being discussed when Charles and Camilla married. I believe that they have the power so to speak, to give Camilla a none Queen title should they deem this the correct thing to do.
Saz wrote:
I have no doubt they could, but hope they don't. Camilla get's a lot of stick when you consider Charles actually dumped her for Diana first off, yet she get's blamed for being a marriage wrecker. I know Diana is beloved in the hearts of the UK, so Camilla is always going to be the bad guy regardless. Another woman I don't envy at all.
minchy wrote:
Camilla will never have the title of queen of any sort, this was decided when she and Charles married (as Asphalt_world said) hence her title duchess of Cambridge not Princess of Wales.
To continue my pedantry... The monarch has the right to give anyone any title they wish, therefore if Charles does become King, he can give Camilla the title "Queen" if he wants to, or even "Supreme Overlord", just as the current Queen could give Phil the Greek the title of "King" if she wanted to, but she doesn't, so he's
only a Prince.
Personally I think he should give her the title "Queen", hence me using the would "should", and stipulating the circumstances in which I think that
shouldn't happen, i.e. him dying before Liz, or choosing not to take the throne when mommy dearest pops her clogs.
Anyway, it's all a moot point really, it's not like it'd make the slightest bit of difference to anyone normal people's lives.
Back OT... To those suggesting that the DJ's, or someone, almost anyone, should be prosecuted "because their actions lead to someone taking their own life", I'm just curious, do you think that when somebody goes off on one, doing copycat killings of a film, blaming the film for their actions, that those who made the film should be held accountable, that they should be prosecuted? After all, if they'd not made the film then said person would not have committed those crimes, their actions lead to someone murdering innocent people, to use your own logic.
They could not have reasonably assumed that anyone involved would do such a thing. If your view is that they should have been able to foresee such an outcome, and therefore that the prank call should never have been allowed to be placed, then you probably think that the vast majority of comedy shouldn't be allowed. I dread to think what you think of genuinely, personally, critical peaces of journalism. Anyway, each to their own.
Edit: Obviously and law breaking should be prosecuted, and the trying to gain personal data by deception is an offence here (but as mentioned by someone else, I don't know how such a prosecution would stand up across international boundaries), and so is the giving out personal data without permission from the person in question, even if it really was the Queen on the phone (so if they were going to prosecute the Aussies for that, they'd have to prosecute the nurses and hospital too). Someone mentioned treason, which technically impersonating the Queen is, would stand up as Australia is part of the Commonwealth, but if they were to be prosecuted for that, you'd then also have to prosecute that famous Queen lookalike/stand-in (along with loads of other people), she's properly pretended to be the queen on many occasions for various comedy programs, getting people to do stuff for her, fully believing that she really is the Queen.
Basically there ain't anything gonna come of this, and neither there should, not if we want to live in a decent, relatively free society. Not that I know anything, obviously.