It is not clear what all the fuss is about.
During an interview with the American network NBC, Prince Charles was asked by presenter Brian Williams: "Does the Duchess of Cornwall become Queen of England, if and when you become the monarch?" The prince hesitated, then replied: "That's well … we'll see won't we? That could be."
So Prince Charles has suggested that his wife 'could be' Queen when he accedes to the Throne.
Of course she could.
The tense tells us nothing new.
If Prince Charles be lawfully married to Camilla (and, for some, that remains a quite considerable 'if'), then the convention is that the wife of the King shall be Queen Consort.
The only exception in history was Queen Mary II who reigned as co-sovereign with King William III following the Glorious Revolution of 1689.
All this fuss over the title and style of Camilla came only as a result of extremist expressions of Dianaphilia: there could only be one Princess of Wales.
And so, out of sensitivity to popular opinion, Camilla took the title Duchess of Cornwall.
But it doesn't matter a fig what you call her: she is the Princess of Wales by virtue of her marriage to the Prince of Wales.
And she will automatically be styled Queen by virtue of her marriage to the King.
In any case, People appear to forget that it is Parliament that decides the succession: it is Parliament that will either change the Constitution to permit Charles (as King George VII) to be 'Defender of Faith', and it is Parliament that decides whether or not Camilla will be Queen.
So 'could be' is precisely the tense Prince Charles should have used.
But it is also the tense which applies to the likelihood of his own accession.
