The Queen Mother Chose Diana for Charles — And Watched It Destroy Them Both
The Queen Mother Chose Diana for Charles — And Watched It Destroy Them Both
Charles loved Camilla in 1971. He loved her in 1981 when he married someone else. He loved her in 1997 when that marriage ended in a death. And he loved her in 2005 when he finally married her. 34 years. And the reason it took 34 years has a name. The Queen Mother decided that Camilla Parker Bowles was unsuitable.
And she spent three decades making sure her grandson obeyed. What follows isn’t a retelling of the Charles and Diana marriage. That story has been told exhaustively. And most of the telling has been wrong about who drove it. The Diana narrative has a cast of familiar characters. A fairy tale princess, an unfaithful prince, a scheming mistress.
And almost every version of it misses the person who set the whole machinery in motion. Elizabeth Angela Marguerite Bowes-Lyon. Queen Elizabeth. The Queen Mother. Was the most beloved public figure in 20th century Britain. She was also the most consequential private operator in the decisions that shaped her grandson’s life.
She didn’t issue ultimatums. She didn’t hold press conferences. She worked through the language that power speaks when it doesn’t want to be recorded. The quiet word. The social exclusion. The name absent from an invitation list. And when the results of her management collapsed into the most public royal disaster of the modern era.
She maintained a silence she carried to her grave. This is a case built from what the record actually shows. Where biographers disagree, the script will say so. Where the evidence runs out, it will stop rather than invent. But the documented facts are sufficient to make the argument. And the argument is more disturbing for being cautious.
The meeting itself is disputed. Biographers can’t agree on the year. The BBC puts it in 1970. Biography.com says 1970. Penny Junor’s 2017 biography The Duchess places it in 1971. Some Diana biographies say 1972. Three different years across the main published sources. Which tells you something about how comprehensively the early relationship was initially documented.
What most accounts do agree on is the intermediary. A woman named Lucia Santa Cruz. Daughter of the Chilean ambassador to London who moved in the same social circles as both Charles and Camilla Shand. And introduced them at some point in the early 1970s. The reference when their mutual history came up was to Alice Keppel. Camilla’s great-grandmother who had been a long-running mistress of King Edward the VII.
A pointed joke and one that turned out to be prescient. The relationship that developed between Charles and Camilla Shand through 1971 and 1972 was by the accounts of every biographer who has examined it genuine and serious. They moved in overlapping social circles. Polo matches at Smith’s Lawn in Windsor Great Park.
Weekends at country houses. Dinners in London. Sally Bedell Smith in her 2017 Charles biography describes Camilla as someone who treated Charles as a person rather than a prince. His clear equal in intelligence and temperament. Jonathan Dimbleby’s 1994 authorized biography, 620 pages drawn from direct interviews with Charles and access to his personal diaries documents the attachment without fully resolving its depth.
What seems clear is that by 1972 Charles was seriously considering his options with Camilla Shand. He reportedly considered proposing. He didn’t. The reason he didn’t is where the story gets genuinely complicated and where the honest version of this script has to acknowledge what the record shows rather than what the thesis requires.
Charles’s own indecision was real and documented. Royal biographer Robert Lacey records a specific and consequential detail. In early 1973 the still diffident Charles departed for naval service aboard HMS Minerva without asking Camilla to wait for him. He had joined an accelerated graduates course at the Britannia Royal Naval College in Dartmouth in September 1971 and served on multiple vessels.
HMS Norfolk. Then HMS Minerva from 1972 to 1973. The departure is confirmed. The decision not to commit is what Lacey notes. He left for deployment and made no promise. A month later The Times of London carried a notice. Camilla Rosemary Shand was engaged to Andrew Parker Bowles. A cavalry officer in the Blues and Royals regiment with whom she’d had an intermittent relationship since 1965.
The announcement was published on March 15th, 1973. Charles reportedly encountered it through the newspaper. Which is itself a measure of how unresolved his intentions had been. He wrote to his great uncle Lord Mountbatten about it. That the feeling of emptiness would pass eventually. Camilla Shand married Andrew Parker Bowles on July 4th, 1973 at the Guards Chapel in London.
The press called it the society wedding of the year. 800 guests attended. To understand the Queen Mother’s position on Camilla Parker Bowles you first have to understand the code she was enforcing. Not her personal preference. An institutional system of belief that had governed royal marriages for generations and that the Queen Mother held to with a conviction that went beyond convention.
The clearest articulation of this standard doesn’t actually come from the Queen Mother. It comes from Lord Mountbatten writing to Charles in 1974. Mountbatten advised his great nephew that while he should sow his wild oats and have as many affairs as he can before settling down, his future wife should be a suitable, attractive, and sweet-charactered girl before she has met anyone else she might fall for.
He continued that it is disturbing for women to have experiences if they have to remain on a pedestal after marriage. That letter in its frank language is the institutional standard made explicit. An heir to the throne required a bride with no prior romantic history. Ideally from the titled aristocracy. Anglican. Publicly composed.
Young enough to be shaped by royal life rather than formed independently of it. The Queen Mother held this view at least as deeply as Mountbatten. There is some historical precedent for how she had applied it before Charles. Her own daughter Princess Margaret had wanted to marry Group Captain Peter Townsend in 1953.
Townsend was a decorated RAF officer who had served as an equerry to George the VI. He was also divorced. The Queen Mother per biographers including royal historian Hugo Vickers veered between pretending it wasn’t happening and prophesying doom during the Townsend affair. The marriage didn’t happen.
The Church of England’s prohibition on remarriage of divorced persons provided the formal mechanism. But the Queen Mother’s institutional instincts ran in the same direction. Camilla Shand failed the standard on multiple counts. She had an extensive dating history. Parker Bowles had been in her life since 1965. An on-and-off relationship that everyone in their social circle knew about.
She had had other boyfriends. She was perceived in the vocabulary of the time as worldly, experienced, self-assured. Already formed as a woman rather than a blank canvas for a royal projection. And she was in the technical sense that mattered institutionally not from the titled aristocracy. As historian Carolyn Harris, an expert in royal consort history, has noted.
While Camilla was upper class, she wasn’t part of the titled aristocracy. And that was a genuine disqualification by the standards then applied. Charles’s own cousin and godmother Patricia Mountbatten addressed the question directly in 2005 after the marriage had finally happened. She said that with hindsight you can say Charles should have married Camilla when he first had the chance.
That they were ideally suited. But it wasn’t possible then. Patricia Mountbatten was inside this world. Her statement confirms the consensus view. It wasn’t one person’s judgment. It was a shared institutional verdict. Widely held and structurally enforced. The Queen Mother’s specific version of this objection had a personal dimension that made it sharper than anyone else’s.
Biography.com drawing on biographers including Bedell Smith, records that she detested Camilla and saw in her an echo of Wallis Simpson, the woman whose marriage to her brother-in-law had upended the monarchy. That Wallis Simpson comparison is documented across the biographical record. It explains a great deal.
Edward VIII abdicated on December 11th, 1936, to marry Wallis Simpson, a twice-divorced American woman. The abdication placed the crown on George VI, a man with a stammer and fragile health who had neither expected nor prepared for the role. The Queen Mother watched her husband bear that burden for 16 years, and she watched it shorten his life.
George VI died on February 6th, 1952, at 56 years old. The Queen Mother had lived through the Simpson crisis from the inside, as the wife of the reluctant king. The institutional catastrophe caused by one unsuitable woman’s presence in the royal household wasn’t for her an abstraction. It was the defining event of her marriage.
In Camilla, experienced, embedded in her grandson’s emotional life in ways that couldn’t simply be legislated away, associated now with a parallel outside attachment that replicated the structural shape of the Simpson situation, the Queen Mother saw the same threat reconfiguring in the next generation, and she acted on it. Not loudly.
The Queen Mother never acted loudly on anything that mattered. She acted in the language available to her. According to Sally Bedell Smith’s own writing, not second-hand paraphrase, but Bedell Smith’s direct prose on her own Substack, both Queen Elizabeth II and the Queen Mother quietly let it be known that Camilla shouldn’t be invited to any royal events.
That phrase is specific. Quietly let it be known describes an active communication. Someone told someone, and the signal reached the relevant social secretaries and equerry networks. Camilla Parker Bowles was to be absent from the royal world. And for the years she was married to Andrew Parker Bowles, navigating the social landscape of Charles’s official life as a close family friend, the documented exclusion was real.
Ruth Roche, Baroness Fermoy, born Ruth Sylvia Gill on October 2nd, 1908, in Scotland, doesn’t appear in most tellings of this story as anything more than a peripheral figure. She deserves more than that. Even if the strongest version of her role resists clean documentation. From 1956 onwards, Fermoy served as Woman of the Bedchamber to Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, an intimate lady-in-waiting appointment that gave her daily access to the Queen Mother’s private life, confidence, and preferences over several decades.
Tina Brown’s 2007 book, The Diana Chronicles, describes the two women as intimate personal friends since 1931, bound by a shared love of music, that played together, attended concerts together, and maintained the kind of friendship that four decades of close service produces. The Queen Mother’s official biographer, William Shawcross, had access to the correspondence between them.
At the same time, Ruth Fermoy was Diana Spencer’s maternal grandmother. One woman, two positions. The Queen Mother’s intimate and the grandmother of the woman who would become Princess of Wales. That structural coincidence, if coincidence is what it was, placed Fermoy at the exact intersection where the Queen Mother’s preferences and the Spencer family’s next generation met.
The Los Angeles Times ran Ruth, Lady Fermoy’s obituary on July 10th, 1993. It identified her as maternal grandmother and matchmaker of the Princess of Wales, and a trusted friend of the British royal family since 1931. That is an official newspaper record. The word matchmaker appeared in the permanent record of her life.
Fermoy herself denied it. When asked about her role in the Charles-Diana match, she said that you can say that if you like, but it simply wouldn’t be true. She maintained publicly that young people don’t need grandmothers to guide their romances. And there is a documented fact that complicates the matchmaker narrative significantly.
Multiple sources confirm that Fermoy advised Diana against the marriage. She reportedly told her granddaughter that their sense of humor and their lifestyle are different, and that she didn’t think it would suit her. That isn’t the voice of a woman engineering an outcome. It’s the voice of a woman who knew exactly what royal life was like and thought her granddaughter unsuited for it.
The causal pipeline that the most aggressive version of this argument requires, Queen Mother communicates preference to Fermoy, who engineers Diana’s proximity to Charles, isn’t proven by the documentary record. The structural connection exists. The causal mechanism, in the specific directed sense, isn’t established.
Any honest account has to say that. What is established is how Diana Spencer entered Charles’s orbit. She first met him at Althorp, her family’s Northamptonshire estate, in November 1977, when she was 16 years old. Charles was 29 and was there as the companion of Diana’s older sister, Sarah Spencer. He barely registered her.
Their serious courtship didn’t begin until 1980. By then, she was 19, and she had, per every documented account, no prior serious romantic relationships. Diana checked every box the institutional standard required. She was aristocratic, from a family with roots that ran deeper into English history than the Windsors themselves.
She was Anglican. She was publicly composed, young, and untested. She had, crucially, no prior attachments. Her uncle, Lord Fermoy, made this explicit in the most public way possible. Before the July 1981 wedding, he publicly declared that Diana was a bonafide virgin. That a family member would offer that statement as though it were a qualification, which it was, tells you everything about the criteria being applied.
Some accounts suggest the Queen Mother specifically wanted Charles to marry one of the Spencer granddaughters of her close friend, Lady Fermoy. That claim remains unverified in named primary sources. What is documented is the structural opportunity. The Queen Mother’s intimate was Diana’s grandmother, and the match that emerged from the search of the late 1970s and early 1980s produced precisely the kind of candidate the Queen Mother’s code required.
Whether that was engineering or coincidence or something in between, the effect was the same. The loudest version of this story insists that the Queen Mother personally lobbied Charles against Camilla, pulled strings to arrange the Diana match through secret meetings with Mountbatten, >> [snorts and clears throat] >> and effectively gave Charles his marching orders.
That version, dramatized vividly in several television productions, is largely fiction. Sally Bedell Smith, who approaches the question with more independence than either Jonathan Dimbleby or Penny Junor, addressed this directly. It’s not likely the Queen Mother stepped in at all. In fact, this big family team-up probably didn’t happen.
That statement needs to be heard. Bedell Smith is a serious biographer, drawing on serious research. The active, direct, conspiratorial intervention implied by blocked for 30 years does not have clean documentary support. No specific conversation between the Queen Mother and Charles in which she explicitly told him to abandon Camilla has been reproduced in the available biographical record.
The Dimbleby biography, which draws on Charles’s own diaries and direct interviews, exists in full, but the specific passages about the Queen Mother’s views on Camilla aren’t available in excerpted form in the research record. The letter fragment that appears in multiple Google Books previews of royal biographies is too incomplete to use as proof of anything.
What Bedell Smith’s challenge to the active intervention narrative coexists with, however, is something Bedell Smith herself documented, the social exclusion mechanism. Her own Substack writing records that both the Queen and the Queen Mother quietly let it be known that Camilla shouldn’t be invited to any royal events.
The passive form, let it be known, is doing considerable work there. Somebody communicated something. The signal reached somewhere. Camilla Parker Bowles was absent from royal events, and her absence wasn’t accidental. This is how the Queen Mother operated throughout her adult life, through preference rather than direct instruction, through the language of inclusion and exclusion rather than explicit command.
The distinction between I told Charles directly not to marry Camilla and I quietly communicated to everyone in the relevant social circles that Camilla wasn’t to be present at royal events matters in a court of law. In a social architecture like the British royal household where the hierarchy is absolute and the participants are trained from birth to read unstated signals the practical difference is smaller than it might appear.
Jonathan Dimbleby’s 1994 biography establishes that Charles participated in direct authorized interviews 620 pages of documented access to his own perspective on the marriage and its failure. The biography confirms the resumption of the Charles Camilla relationship places it firmly in 1986 and records Charles’s statement that the marriage had irretrievably broken down before that point.
What it does not reproduce in available excerpts are specific passages about direct Queen Mother opposition. Dimbleby was Charles’s authorized biographer. Pro-Charles framing is a documented risk in reading the result. Charles himself reportedly later regretted the degree of his cooperation neither the absence of documentary evidence of a specific conversation nor the presence of an authorized biographer’s silence tells us definitively what happened in private.
What the circumstantial record does show is this. When Amanda Knatchbull Lord Mountbatten’s granddaughter who had been earmarked as a potential match for Charles declined his proposal after her grandfather’s assassination in August 1979 Charles turned to Camilla Parker Bowles for comfort. By 1980 she was described by multiple sources as having resumed a closeness with Charles that stopped short for the moment of resuming their affair.
The attachment had not dissipated in the 7 years since her marriage to Parker Bowles. The question of whether Charles ever raised Camilla’s name with his grandmother proposed her argued for her sought the Queen Mother’s blessing for a match is directly addressed by Bedell Smith.
Her view is that Charles wasn’t ready to propose to Camilla in the early 1970s and wouldn’t have raised the question with his family unless he was. If Charles never made the case for Camilla to the Queen Mother the Queen Mother never had to reject it explicitly. The social exclusion could do the work without a confrontation. Camilla’s name simply wasn’t spoken in the context where it might have counted.
That isn’t a conspiracy. It’s the operation of a very old very powerful and very quiet form of institutional preference. The wedding of Charles Prince of Wales and Lady Diana Spencer took place on July 29th 1981 at St. Paul’s Cathedral. The congregation numbered 3,500. The worldwide television audience was estimated at 750 million.
Diana was 20 years old. By the time they married Charles had known Camilla Parker Bowles for a decade. He had written to Mountbatten about the emptiness of losing her. He had stayed in contact with her through her marriage serving as godfather to her son Tom born in 1974. On the honeymoon Diana would later record finding a photograph of Camilla tucked in Charles’s diary and noticing cufflinks Camilla had given him.
Camilla Parker Bowles attended the wedding. Jonathan Dimbleby’s authorized biography places the resumption of Charles and Camilla’s relationship in 1986 5 years into the marriage. Charles told Dimbleby the affair resumed after the marriage had irretrievably broken down. By the late 1980s Charles and Diana were living separately within the same public arrangement.
He at Highgrove in Gloucestershire and she at Kensington Palace. The failures in the marriage were real and ran in multiple directions but the foundational structural problem was present from the beginning. Two people brought together primarily by institutional criteria not mutual attachment attempting to sustain a public marriage before a global audience while one of them remained emotionally fixed on someone else.
The year 1992 produced two events that stripped away what remained of the marriage’s facade. Andrew Morton published Diana her true story in June of that year a book that drew on taped interviews Diana had secretly recorded and passed through an intermediary. The book made the Camilla affair explicit and gave Diana’s perspective on the collapse in her own voice.
In December Prime Minister John Major announced the formal separation to Parliament. The marriage was over in everything but name. William Shawcross whose 2009 official authorized biography of the Queen Mother had full access to royal archives and private correspondence records that the Queen Mother was deeply shocked when the Morton collaboration became public.
That is the precise formulation Shawcross uses not concerned not disapproving but deeply shocked. The emphasis suggests something that transgressed expectations she had held firmly. Shawcross [snorts] also notes in a complication that any honest account must include that the Queen Mother was sympathetic toward Diana.
She understood the pressure that the Princess of Wales was under per the Shawcross account. She wasn’t simply a partisan defending her grandson against his wife’s grievances. She appears to have grasped at some level that Diana was genuinely suffering. What she didn’t do in any documented instance was connect that suffering to the decision of 1981 that she had helped make possible the quiet opposition to Camilla the communicated preference that had steered the search toward a different kind of woman.
The institutional standard that had made Diana the obvious candidate. None of that appears in any recorded reckoning. After the December 1992 separation an account attributed to an unnamed royal equerry records that the Queen Mother refused to let Diana’s name be spoken publicly in her presence. The enforced silence of the powerful directed at the woman who had suffered most from the arrangement is its own kind of statement.
Diana’s Panorama interview with Martin Bashir aired on November 20th 1995 and was watched by 23 million people in Britain. Before it was broadcast a section was removed material Diana had recorded about the Queen Mother. The full content of what was cut has never been published. The fact that Diana had filmed specific criticisms pointed enough to be protected from public airing suggests her private assessment of her grandmother-in-law’s role was something more than ambient family tension.
Charles and Diana divorced in August 1996. Diana died in the Pont de l’Alma tunnel in Paris on August 31st 1997 from injuries sustained in a car crash. She was 36 years old. The Queen Mother was 97. She had watched the Morton book the separation the Dimbleby documentary in which Charles admitted adultery on television in 1994 the Panorama interview the divorce and the death.
At no point in the documented record across Shawcross’s archive-based biography Junor’s accounts Bedell Smith’s research does she appear to have publicly or privately acknowledged any connection between her own sustained opposition to Camilla Parker Bowles and the catastrophe that had played out over a decade and a half.
The silence where the record is clear that she was present and aware is itself a form of testimony. In August 1999 the New York Post published a report that most royal watchers noted and few fully appreciated at the time. The 98-year-old Queen Mum the paper wrote on August 2nd had invited Camilla to join Prince Charles during an autumn break at Birkhall her home on the Balmoral estate in Scotland.
Birkhall the Queen Mother’s own private home on the Balmoral estate. She was 98 years old. For the first time in the research record the one documented instance across all the biographical accounts the Queen Mother had issued an invitation that placed Camilla Parker Bowles inside her personal circle. The timing matters.
Diana had been dead for 2 years. Charles was 50 years old. He had been in love with the same woman for nearly three decades. And that woman had by now been through her own divorce public vilification in the British press and a sustained effort at image rehabilitation managed by Charles’s deputy private secretary Mark Bolland. Camilla was no longer an affair.
She was increasingly a permanent fixture. Someone whose presence Charles had declared non-negotiable to anyone who would listen, according to Penny Junor’s account in the Daily Mail. The 1999 Birkhall invitation was private. There was no public statement accompanying it. No recorded conversation in which the Queen Mother acknowledged what she was doing.
The invitation was one quiet act extended near the end of a long life without comment on the 30 years that preceded it. Multiple biographies published after the Queen Mother’s death note her passing as a structural turning point in the Charles-Camilla relationship’s path toward public legitimacy.
Tina Brown’s The Palace Papers and other accounts describe the Queen Mother’s death as an enabling event, something that shifted the conditions within which both Charles and Queen Elizabeth II could move. One account describes the Queen Mother’s death as having quite a huge effect on the Queen and how she thought about the situation.
The obstacle that had been present in various forms for three decades was simply gone. Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother died in her sleep at Birkhall on March 30th, 2002. She was 101 years old. Charles and Camilla announced their engagement on February 10th, 2005. They married on April 9th, 2005, 3 years and 10 days after the Queen Mother’s death.
For the engagement, Charles chose a ring, a 5-carat Art Deco diamond in the emerald cut, which Tatler’s documented history of the piece identifies as having belonged to Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother. She had worn it through the 1970s and 1980s and bequeathed it to Charles on her death in 2002. The woman she had opposed for 30 years received the Queen Mother’s own ring.
The prosecutorial honesty this account requires means acknowledging what it can’t prove. Sally Bedell Smith’s direct challenge to the active blocking narrative is serious and shouldn’t be dismissed. The specific conversations between the Queen Mother and Charles about Camilla, if they happened, aren’t reproduced in accessible primary sources.
The causal chain from the Queen Mother’s preferences through Ruth Fermoy to the Diana match rests on structural proximity and documented circumstance, not a documented pipeline. Charles’s own indecision in 1973 was real. The institutional suitability standard was palace-wide, not the Queen Mother’s personal invention.
What the record does show, with reasonable confidence, a sustained documented opposition to Camilla’s presence in the royal social world, communicated through the mechanism Bedell Smith herself named, the quiet word that let it be known. A Wallis Simpson comparison that was personal rather than abstract, rooted in the Queen Mother’s own marriage history and the abdication crisis she had lived through from the inside.
A structural position occupied by her closest friend that placed Ruth Fermoy at the intersection of the Queen Mother’s preferences and the Spencer family. A match, Charles and Diana, that produced precisely the kind of candidate the institutional standard required and the Queen Mother approved. A marriage she watched collapse without reported acknowledgement of the role she had played in building it.
And then, at 98, one private invitation extended without comment or reckoning 3 years before her death. Then silence, then a wedding, then a ring. The sources on which this account relies have their own complications, and those complications belong in the record. Jonathan Dimbleby’s 1994 biography was explicitly authorized by Prince Charles, who participated in direct interviews and provided access to his private diaries.
Dimbleby presented Charles’s own version of the narrative. Charles later reportedly regretted the degree of his cooperation. Penny Junor opens her Camilla biography with the declaration that her subject is possibly the most wronged and misunderstood woman she has ever met. A statement of sympathy that tells you how to weight her conclusions about who wronged Camilla most.
Sally Bedell Smith, described by the New York Times as producing a book that is pro-Charles, anti-Diana in its 2017 Charles biography, is nevertheless the most methodologically independent of the three and the most willing to challenge received narrative, including the narrative that aligns with this script’s thesis.
William Shawcross had royal archive access for the Queen Mother biography, which means both the most authoritative evidence and a source that filters through the institution it describes. Where these sources agree, the Queen Mother’s opposition to Camilla, the social exclusion mechanism, the institutional suitability standards, the Queen Mother’s shock at Morton, her documented sympathy toward Diana, the evidence is solid.
Where they diverge, particularly on the question of direct intervention and deliberate matchmaking, the script presents the question rather than the conclusion. The honest verdict is narrower than the loudest version of this story and more disturbing for that narrowness. The Queen Mother didn’t need to give orders.
She needed only to maintain the preference, to hold the line on who was and wasn’t welcome at royal events, to look at Camilla Parker Bowles and see Wallis Simpson, and to look at Diana Spencer and see exactly what a princess was supposed to be. The institutional logic did the rest. And when the institutional logic produced its disaster, the marriage that was wrong from its foundation, the collapse that played out before hundreds of millions of people, the death in a Paris tunnel at 36, the Queen Mother held her counsel.
The most powerful silent hand in the story stayed silent to the end. The Queen Mother didn’t destroy Charles and Diana’s marriage. She built it. She hand-selected the blueprint, approved the foundation, and watched the whole thing collapse. And she never picked up a single piece of the wreckage. That is what the record shows.
A woman who had survived the Wallis Simpson crisis by watching her husband bear a crown he didn’t want, who spent decades at the center of the institution that crown required, who saw in one specific woman the shape of an earlier catastrophe and communicated her disapproval through every quiet channel available. And who was still alive to watch the marriage she had helped approve come apart in front of 23 million television viewers.
Whether that constitutes active blocking or the successful enforcement of a standard that excluded Camilla on everyone’s behalf, the outcome was the same. Charles spent his 20s, 30s, and most of his 40s unable to marry the woman he wanted because the world the Queen Mother operated in had decided she was wrong.
When the Queen Mother died at 101, that decision died with her. 3 years later, Charles and Camilla were married. With the Queen Mother’s ring on Camilla’s finger, subscribe for more stories like this.