When or if Prince Charles ever becomes king, what EXACTLY will Camilla Parker Bowles status be?

Contrary to popular misconception, there is not and never was a law against the monarch's being married to a divorced person. The kerfuffle surrounding the Abdication in 1936 involved great social and religious disapproval of divorce at the time. The monarch, for example, is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, which back then prohibited the religious remarriage of the divorced. How, people wondered, could he or she be married in a civil ceremony?

The fact that Wallis Simpson was TWICE-divorced and also American played a role, too, and of course there's the view that some people were looking for any good excuse to get rid of Edward. If he hadn't been so problematic a personality, and if his lady love had been a once-divorced British woman, who knows? Perhaps some accommodation would have been made.

Since then, social attitudes towards divorce have changed hugely, and the C of E has dropped its blanket prohibition of the religious remarriage of the divorced. Fully three of the Queen's children have been divorced and two have remarried. It would be rather hypocritical for the British to insist that Charles couldn't be their king, and Camilla their queen consort, when so many British citizens have also been divorced and when there is no law against it.

As for Camilla's status, the UK does not have morganatic marriage whereby a wife gets a lesser title than the one she would normally have. Right now, she is the legal Princess of Wales even though she doesn't use the title, and she will be the legal queen consort, whether she uses that title or not. Under British Common Law, a wife takes her titles and style from her husband's. However, it will be up to King Charles, in the end, what title she actually uses, and he may decide to go with the plan he once described, that she will use the title "Princess Consort," even though there's no precedent for it.

Parliament would have to pass an act to deprive Camilla legally of the title of "Queen Consort". That would raise some awkward issues. Since the grounds would have to be Camilla's adultery with a married prince -- there isn't any other justification -- Parliament would then have to consider whether that married prince was disqualified from becoming king because of HIS adultery. It would be a bit difficult to decide that he was, given how many British kings merrily committed adultery many times throughout their reigns. And if Charles can become king, why can't Camilla become queen consort? The double standard involved in any Parliamentary act penalizing Camilla alone would outrage many, regardless of their views of the adultery itself.

No

She will be the same wh*rish adulterous hag that she has always been.

no

Yes

The Queen gave her consent to Charles' marriage to Camilla. Charles could not have married her without it, and HM would not have taken this step without consulting with her ministers.

Besides, the Church of England has been more accepting of divorced people now than it was in 1936.

When Elizabeth croaks, doesnt Charles as first-born become King? Camilla should be Queen Consort. Prince Philip was never a king to Elizabeth's queen status. I never liked her.

The situation is very different now from what it was in the 1930s. Back then the Anglican Church did not recognise divorce or tolerate the remarriage of divorced people; now it does. Back then divorce was seen as on itself immoral and disgraceful, so much so that people who set store by respectability endured wretched and abusive marriages for decades rather than divorce. (This attitude lingered into the 1960s, particularly towards women; the word 'divorcee' routinely implied 'woman of negotiable virtue'. ) However, both the Church and society at large have radically modified their attitudes since then.

Even in the 1930s, though, there was no *legal* bar to Edward VIII marrying Wallis Simpson and her being Queen; it was the religious and social issues that made it unthinkable.

So, the answer to your question is that there is no legal or religious bar whatsoever to Camilla becoming Queen.

Normally the wife of a king is usually called a queen but it has been suggested that Camillla , the Duchess of Cornwall, should be called the Princess Consort. I don't agree with this. I don't see any reaosn why Camilla should not receive the same honour as previous wives of kings.

Soon, likely.