Both are correct, Queen Consort is used to differentiate from a Queen Regnant ie Queen Elizabeth II. 

He disliked too much pomp and ceremony and at 65 he wanted a quieter coronation. He was also aware of the huge expense and controversy of his deceased brother's coronation in 1821. 

Narrrr, he's just giving way to his pseudo socialist bent. He wants the big deal but has to play the usual lefty lie of caring about the expense.

India is protesting about the Koh-i-Noor diamond in the crown with which Queen Camilla will be crowned next year. They say it'll bring back painful memories of colonialism. My answer to that is SOD OFF! There are very few in India who'll remember colonial days and the rest won't care anyway, unless the government whips them up into a righteous frenzy. 

One solution the government is thinking of is to remove the diamond, another is to use a different crown. There are no set rules about the type of crown for the coronation of a Queen Consort.

Camilla should wear the crown and devil pay the hindmost. 

It won't enhance her severe appearance Shula, maybe a paper bag would be better. 

They'll give in of course in the interests of equality and for fear of upsetting India when we need good relations in these difficult times. 

There will come a point in which museums will only display items from the local area, everything else will be repatriated. Loan arrangements will have to be negotiated to display anything else.  

Camilla has very nice hair which diminishes her severeness; diamonds and pearls help too.

Colonialism is expensive.

Most of those treasures were stolen, & now the chickens are coming home to roost. 

If they decide to avoid the controversy of the Koh-i-Noor the favourite to replace it is Queen Adelaide's Crown used to crown Adelaide, wife of William IV in 1831.

Tom, she was quite a dollybird in her hayday when a young Charlieboy was playing around in her knickers. You wouldn't have kicked her out of bed

Quite right, she's pretty much entirely rehabilitated herself with the British public, there will always be some Diana groupies who'll never accept her of course. 

Perhaps King Charles knows the secret to a happy marriage:

Buckingham Palace is still a fine building, renovations will take place over time so as not to impede the work of the Crown. It is not the prime residence of the Monarch, they refer to it as "the office", Windsor Castle is the favoured residence.  

Yes, Buckingham Palace is owned by the Crown it's not a private residence, so the taxpayer foots the bill. I expect a similar arrangement covers renovations at the White House?

Yes, Buckingham Palace is owned by the Crown it's not a private residence, so the taxpayer foots the bill. I expect a similar arrangement covers renovations at the White House?

The White House is owned by the state, so in that instance it would be similar with the taxpayer footing the bill for renovations & upkeep. But The White House is like garage compared to Buckingham Palace.