Camilla for Queen
Sir: On reading Melanie McDonagh’s argument against there ever being a Queen Camilla (‘Against Queen Camilla’, 25 February), I was reminded of a line from Brideshead Revisited, ‘Beryl is a woman of strict Catholic principle fortified by the prejudices of the middle class.’ Her opposition to Camilla seems to ignore the long tradition of infidelity among our royalty and nobility, where marriage has always been about more than just love. Eleanor of Aquitaine had been married to Louis VII of France, had borne him two daughters and had been unfaithful in that marriage, yet she went on to marry Henry II of England and become his queen consort.
To deny Camilla the status of queen would be wrong and would go against the traditions of this kingdom. Princes Albert and Philip were given their titles because had they become king they would have outranked their wives and a head of state cannot elevate anyone to a level greater than their own. Of course this would not apply in the case of King Charles III.
Jack William Ruddy
Stourpaine, Dorset
Henry VIII’s example
Sir: I read with interest Melanie McDonagh’s piece on Prince Charles’s wish for Camilla to be queen. As a Roman Catholic, I have always been fascinated by the Anglican establishment’s obsession with adultery. Given a large part of the reformation was so that Henry could get his way, I am unsure why Charles must not. I personally don’t have any problem with her becoming queen; you made your bed in 1517.
Sam Jones
London SW9
Life after cash
Sir: In his column about bank closures (Any other business, 18 February), Martin Vander Meyer quoted me (a ‘72-year-old widow’) as using neither cash nor cheques, and your Gloucestershire correspondent Peter Gregory asks (Letters, 25 February) how I can pay my cleaner and window cleaner.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in