Is Prince Charles the Worst House Guest? Ever?

You just know that Dina, rode hard and put away wet on her honeymoon night, thought, "Dear God what hve I done?".

OP, you've obviously never had to deal with a trick who expected breakfast and one of your two bath towels.

You call him the worst; to me, he's the best.

I knew Charles was a jerk but geez.

Rebel Prince: The Power, Passion and Defiance of Prince Charles Hardcover – 22 Mar 2018 by Tom Bower (Author)

Margaret was far worse.

He's not a rebel. He's a passive-aggressive Little Lord Fauntleroy. Still punishing Mommy for loving the Corgis more than him.

His entourage is said to be made up of 124 staff including two personal valets, a chef, private secretary, typist and bodyguards.

The Brits dont mind paying for this idiocy?

It was similar for the Queen during the first part of her reign. When she dined at the homes of friends and of some family members, the food was done at Buckingham Palace and then transported to wherever the Queen was dining. When she realised what was going on she was annoyed and complained that if she wanted to eat her own food prepared by her own chefs, she could stay at home to do it. Thereafter, she enjoyed food prepared by non-palace staff when visiting other people's homes.

Charles is a douchebag.

'Even his personal policeman was roped in to cater to his comfort. If the Prince had to attend a function, the policeman would arrive with a flask containing a pre-mixed Martini. This would then be handed over to the host’s butler along with a special glass that Charles insisted on using.

And if he was expected to sit for a meal, the host would be informed in advance that an aide would be delivering a bag containing the Prince’s food. This was in complete contrast with the Queen, who always ate what everyone else was having.'

R8 - many of us do mind.

I mean, imagine having some spoilt man-child in a position of power ?

Oh...

He's gets it from grandma. Watching a Smithsonian series on Windsor Castle, The Queen Mother would arrive (AT WINDSOR), with her own furniture and paintings.

The are all rather INDULGED.

At least Charles can afford it. The income form the Duchy of Cornwall alone is $28 million per year.

Charles doesn't need lavatory paper. He's full of shit.

"Sir Christopher Airy, who became his private secretary in 1990, was once reprimanded for suggesting to Charles that a forthcoming visit was ‘your duty’. The Prince shouted at him: ‘Duty is what I live — an intolerable burden.’

At home, his demands were constant, which meant an assistant had to be on call in Charles’s office until he went to sleep.

All his aides were subject to familiar daily tirades. ‘Even my office is not the right temperature,’ he’d moan. ‘Why do I have to put up with this? It makes my life so unbearable.’

Sir John Riddell, his private secretary for five years from 1985, once told a colleague that Charles was better suited to being a second-hand car salesman than a royal prince.'

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

'The Prince had invited the banking heir Lord billionaires be rounded up to accompany him. During the tour, a sumptuous lunch was held in a maharaja’s palace.

Unexpectedly, a loaf of Italian bread was placed on the table. As an American billionaire reached out to take a piece, Charles shouted: ‘No, that’s mine! Only for me!’'

"'At the end of the Sandringham weekend — the guests were asked not to leave until the Monday morning — some were told to leave £150 in cash for the staff, or to visit the estate’s souvenir shop. Most would tell their friends that Charles seemed genuine, but that the weekend was surreal.

Those who know him have often asked themselves why Prince Charles is so extraordinarily self-indulgent. Why can’t he be more like his mother, who lives without complaint under leaky roofs and in rooms that haven’t been repainted since her Coronation?

In 2006, for instance, Charles used the royal train simply to travel to Penrith to visit a pub — at a cost of £18,916 — as part of his ‘pub in the hub’ initiative to revitalise village life.

And he spent £20,980 for a day trip by plane from Scotland to Lincolnshire to watch William receive his RAF wings. By contrast, the Queen travelled by train — courtesy of First Capital Connect — to Sandringham at Christmas. Her ticket cost £50, instead of the £15,000 her journey would have cost by the royal train.'

It's been the custom of traveling English royalty to bring along a huge entourage and their own furniture since medieval times. *shrug* Charles is an improvement by bringing his own food; in medieval times, visiting royals would eat their poor hosts out of house and home until it was time to move onto the next stop. *shrug* I think my point is that if a society supports an outdated institution, they can't complain when members of institution behave in outdated ways.

For what it's worth, if I could constantly have a bottle of Laphroaig close at hand and a lackey with a carafe of martinis at my elbow, I would. (And pictures of the Scottish Highlands, too!)

i thought I read somewhere Charles even has a flunkie to put toothpaste on his toothbrush.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Yeah but Downey isn't paid by taxpayers, r21. BIG difference.

Must take a lifetime to set up and break down Camilla’s liquor cabinet and wet bar

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

cut them off

okay, this seems a little rude, but a little ... polite. if you can't be trusted to supply a decent bed set, no worries, mate, we've got our own!

I read the right amount of queeny-ness in this description of His Royal Highness Prince of Wales. Anything less would be humiliating.

Sounds high maintenance.

Serious question: What does his valet ACTUALLY DO? I want to know if it involves things of an intimate nature...

The only one I respect is Queen Elizabeth.

Does HRH use the Royal "we"?

R19 I’m with you! Laphroaig is my favorite!

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

He and the alcoholic whore have separate bedrooms like so many gay Brit couples i've known.

Seems like the royal family drinks a whole lot. The Queen Mum, Queen Elizabeth has a daily dose of booze throughout the day and now I read about Charles and Camilla. Hard to not be an alcoholic when you drink several drinks a day? But it seems to be working for them.

When I read the story earlier I thought of many dataloungers' posts over the years. Is Charles closeted?

There's a petition against taxpayers being forced to pay for Harry and Meghan Markles' wedding on the UK Republican website (in the UK, "Republican" means you're for the abolition of the monarchy, not like in the US where it means you're an idiot).

If the old biddies who comment on the Daily Mail are anything to go by, the bill for the wedding (supposedly "only" the 24 million pounds for security-ha, ha) of fauxmanitarians "Media" Megs and Harry the Mug has been the final straw for the British taxpayer, and even some diehard Royalists are ready to let go of the RF.

He's a mess.

[quote]After a fierce argument, she finally agreed to fly on the BA plane with Charles and 14 staff, including her hairdresser, butler, dresser, two valets, press officers, a doctor and five police protection officers ...

Camilla has a HAIRDRESSER??!

Have you ever seen the UK television show "The Windsors". It's a piss take of the royal family and it's so bad it's brilliant. The portrayal of Prince Charles and Camilla is hilarious.

Prince William and Kate watched the first season. They also claim that they don't watch the Crown but were Downton Abbey fans. Can't be fans of DA and skip the Crown.

Camilla has to look fab for those PHOTO OPs, E39.

Seriously, I won't complain when my partner's sister shows up for a weekend with seven suitcases, a tempurpedic mattress topper and two framed photographs of her late cats. Seems entirely reasonable now.

Personally, I'm taking notes. When I win Powerball this is exactly how my life will be lived.

I wouldn't mind this foolery so much but Charles seems no happier than if he'd been born on a council estate in Hull.

I bring my own bed when I go a-visiti'

R22, HRH has ample private income. See R13.

I'm puzzled that he's anywhere near clingfilm myself? Elizabeth I was reputed to be just as hard for hosts to entertain.

Yes, indeed, r47. Read on:

"And Peat’s quibble about the legal ownership of the six homes variously occupied by the Prince (Clarence House, Highgrove, Birkhall, the Castle of Mey, Balmoral and Sandringham) was clearly disingenuous.

Among other things Peat failed to mention was that when Charles moved into Clarence House, in 2003, the cost of refurbishment had soared from £3 million towards £6 million — all funded by the taxpayer. Or that the 15-bedroom Castle of Mey, had been rebuilt with the help of a £1 million gift from Julia Kauffman, a Canadian-born heiress living in Kansas City." Foreign Office officials, however, were well aware of the Prince’s tendency to demand the best of everything, without dipping into his own pocket.

And....

"At the time of his complaint, among his 124 staff — most of them paid for by taxpayers — were four valets."

R49 Why would a Canadian heiress live in Kansas City??

"Yeah but Downey isn't paid by taxpayers, [R21]. BIG difference."

It's idiocy either way.

I don't get Prince Charles. On one hand, he seems to care about a number of significant issues (like environment) and his Prince's Trust has done an enormous amount of good work and given a lot of young people a chance to start a viable business. On the other hand you get these stories every once in awhile that basically say he's a complete dickhead. I guess you can be both but it is always kind of disappointing. They have privileges in how they live and unique opportunities to do with their lives the kind of make a difference stuff that many people would love to have the opportunity to make. So you wish they'd behave properly.

Still, I like the institution of monarchy... it's apart from an elected head of state and the grubby business of politics. Yep, I know there's big difference between theory and actual, but I still prefer it personally. When they're at their best they're great and the whole thing has a higher feel than some elected moron. Give me someone forced into a job like that over someone who decides they aspire to it, any day.

Her mother, Muriel, was born in Canada, r50.

Muriel Kauffman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Muriel Irene McBrien Kauffman (August 28, 1916 – March 17, 1995) was a civic leader and philanthropist in Kansas City, Missouri. She was the wife and partner of Ewing Kauffman. Ewing and Muriel worked together at Marion Labs and were the founding owners of the Kansas City Royals baseball team.

She was born in Toronto, Ontario, graduated from the Trafalgar Castle School in Whitby, Ontario and McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. Her father was Toronto lawyer and politician Fred McBrien.[1] She met Ewing the early 1960s in Miami, Florida. He was attending a medical convention and she was vacationing at the same hotel. They married in February 1962.

After her death, her remains were interred at the Ewing and Muriel Kauffman Memorial Garden next to her husband's remains.

Upon Muriel Kauffman's death, Julia Irene Kauffman (Muriel's daughter) carried forward her mother's idea to build a performing arts center in Kansas City. As chairman of the Muriel McBrien Kauffman Foundation, Julia Kauffman worked to turn her mother's dream into a performing arts center.

i thought Charles's income was from the Duchy of Cornwall, which is why he's so independently rich (unlike his siblings, who get their money from their mother).

[QUOTE] Clarence House staff, however, were ordered to give her special treatment: they had to bow to her, and reply ‘Yes, Ma’am’ to all her demands.

As they would to any HRH, even Princess Michael.

r51, I assume the British will just create a President similar to the German system to oversee the head of state duties once the crown is abolished. People seem to enjoy that setup in Germany, though the countries are very different so it might not work in the UK.

Laphroaig can be pretty pricey, perhaps Charles could economize by switching to something cheaper.

Spot on, r56! Eug and I economise every day. We wear the skimpiest dresses, off the rack bits, with odd looking belts that no one would go near with a barge pole, and we grab whatever old fascinators mum has stashed in her closet. We sometimes don't even bother wearing bras! That right there save a lot of quid for dear old Dad and Granny.

The Royal Family seem to have quite a few alcoholics.

I don't think having a wee nap after a night out is anything serious, anyone?

work-shy

R56, Laphroaig is hardly pricey. Even the single-malt is around $100. Of course Charles does look like a bottle-a-night type, but he's also the type to gouge the distillery in Islay for his requisite 31 bottles a month as the price for his imprimatur.

Cammy looks like a bathtub-gin kind of girl. As in lying in it and going under a la Whitney and just swigging until it's empty.

I love that his staff is being described as "flunkies"

Sounds like Will and Harry need Al-Anon. No wonder the queen is ruling until death to avoid Charles having much time on the throne if at all.

[quote]I mean, imagine having some spoilt man-child in a position of power ?

Except, he’s not in a position of power. Only of privilege.

[quote}Laphroaig is hardly pricey. Even the single-malt is around $100.

Actually less than half that even here in New York, r61. Still one of my favorite Islays,

Legend has it that back during Prohibition it was still allowed into the country labelled as medicine because the tasters couldn't believe the bitter/sour taste (to the uninitiated) was anything else.

[quote]Seems like the royal family drinks a whole lot.

Shocking!

Charles leveraged his "privilege" to practically destroy Diana's reputation while she was alive, r64 through a whispering campaign using his friends. That was tantamount to abuse of power that comes with privilege.

r61 that's what I meant, Charles looks like he swills a bottle or more daily so it would get pricey.

Yes, Camilla would probably drink anything that was put in front of her, even bottom-shelf rotgut gin or vodka. She doesn't strike me as too picky.

[quote]Charles leveraged his "privilege" to practically destroy Diana's reputation while she was alive, [R64] through a whispering campaign using his friends.

Oh I see, ruining someone through gossip was what was meant by “power?”

I love Laphroaig. It is indeed an acquired taste.

There's formal and informal types of power, rsoixante-neuf. Informal can be even more damaging.

The British royals are figureheads. They have no power.

He’s worse than Will Smith with his giant mobile home trailers.

One of his valet's duties was to jack him off! Seriously, and then clean up.

R72 doesn't understand the meaning of the word "power" outside a fourth-grade schoolyard.

One recalls Stalin snorting while asking how many divisions the pope has.

r74 is that really true?

Charles has ugly hands and nails; he should start wearing gloves like Jackie Onassis did to hide her ugly hands.

[quote] Clarence House staff, however, were ordered to give her special treatment: they had to bow to her, and reply ‘Yes, Ma’am’ to all her demands.

I am completely baffled by this. She's the wife of the Prince of Wales and she is HRH the Duchess of Cornwall: of course they have to address her a s"Ma'am" and cater to her demands. What did the writer of this piece think the staff of the Prince 's house would be asked to do instead? Ignore her demands, and address her as "Toots"?

Princess Margaret was the WORST when it came to this sort of thing. Stories of her endless demands and just being a total pain in the ass when she visited people in their homes are legion. Tracey Ullman did a hilarious skit about this on her old HBO show.

And a bag over his head R77

I've always wondered why the UK and provinces feel and more fealty toward royalty. The royals are parasites and should be exterminated.

And the sad thing is, William can't become King unless Charles becomes King and then abdicates which I highly doubt he'll do. You can't just skip him or disinherit him, that's not how it works. The U.K. (along with the rest of the world) may be laughing at us for having Trump as President, but wait until Charles becomes King. Then they'll know our shame.

I was in London the months before Diana and him got married. So much lovely energy in the air... the new future: with the beautiful zesty Diana. Pity he treated her with such lack of grace...

we love u D, and will never forget the real magic u brought to that turdy family...

FOREVER FOREVER FOREVER

prefer a visit from Harry.

....Come hither kind lady

Anyone knows how Camilla and the other female royals buy stuff like panties and lingerie? Do they shop online with credit cards not in their names to hide their identities?

Before the internet I assume they gave instructions to their assistants who went out and bought it. It must have been so embarrassing.

Who buys Camilla's ciggies? Do they send one of the kitchen maids out to the nearest Tesco when she's running low on B&H?

That's nothing. He fully expects to be able to bed any married woman he fancies. He had two mistresses, counting the Rottweiller, and she had a convenient accident when she got too mouthy. He's a total cad, but all the royals are brought up to believe this is normal behavior. The whole family was shocked that Diana didn't 'get' this and expected a traditional marriage. Charles is a spoiled brat and supreme asshole and I blame it on both his cold mother and his cheating, over indulgent father.

I wonder what Kate and Williams' online shopping aliases are. I bet they're hilarious.

[quote]Charles has ugly hands and nails; he should start wearing gloves like Jackie Onassis did to hide her ugly hands.

Most of the family, including the queen, have rather sausage like fingers with short wide nail beds.

Is that from inbreeding, r90?

or booze?

R75 is desperate for her impotent monarchy to possess power they don’t. Her idea of “power” is a whisper campaign to make a social peer unpopular — which 13 year old Dalit girls in Mumbai can also do, so I guess they’re powerful as well.

I'm a bit surprised that Tom Bower didn't make a better job of explaining exactly who the chatelaine of Chatsworth, 'Debo' Mitford, the Duchess of Devonshire was. Her family is very interesting.

Her sister Diana was married to Oswald Mosley, leader of the British Union of Fascists, she and her husband were interned for the duration of WWII in Holloway Prison. They were denied passports until 1949. Diana had a diamond swastika amongst her jewels when she died in 2003.

Her sister Unity was obsessed with Adolf Hitler, chasing him around Germany for the latter part of the 1930's. In 1939 she shot herself in the head with a pearl-handled pistol that Hitler had given to her. She was gravely injured and incapable of caring for the rest of her life. She died in 1948.

Her sister Nancy was an author who wrote 'The Pursuit of Love' and 'Love in a Cold Climate' which were very scandalous and said to be based on real members of the Mitford family circle.

Clearly for Prince Charles scandal doesn't seem to matter if you can accommodate his foibles.

[quote]Anyone knows how Camilla and the other female royals buy stuff like panties and lingerie? Do they shop online with credit cards not in their names to hide their identities?

I imagine there's a designated purveyor of such things who attends the Royals at their residences and creates bespoke unmentionables.

[quote] I am completely baffled by this. She's the wife of the Prince of Wales and she is HRH the Duchess of Cornwall: of course they have to address her a s"Ma'am" and cater to her demands. What did the writer of this piece think the staff of the Prince 's house would be asked to do instead? Ignore her demands, and address her as "Toots"?

I think the author is talking about the period where Charles and Camilla lived together in Clarence House (2 yrs before they got married). Shit, the staff had to bow and curtsy to that bitch at Highgrove House back in the 1980's. Camilla basically spent half the week at Highgrove and was the lady of the house (despite it being Princess Diana's house). 15 minutes after Princess Diana would leave Highgrove on Sunday nights to go back to London, Camilla would arrive. She would stay until Thursday evening. While she was there, she would host dinner parties there too.

That's the kind of shit that used to upset Princess Diana. I'd be pissed off too if my husband's mistress was living in my house when I wasn't home.

R95 Not sure why I know this but the Royal ladies always used to buy their unmentionables from Rigby & Peller, the couture side of course.

This is why

R64- he has some power already. Witness the control he has had behind the scenes over architecture in parts of London. He will have more power as King and certainly intends to involve himself in areas the Queen keeps well out of. It is always cited as a concern about his becoming monarch.

As it is privilege without power is better than privilege with. Of course, both should be avoided at all costs.

R82 - you are right. But in the meantime we have all the Brexit idiocy. By the time Charles is king the country will be bust anyway. That is if Putin hasn’t already turned the lights off.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

These sound like the most awful people on the planet. They make the Trumps look downright graceful by comparison.

Princess Margaret was a bitter, miserable woman and she went out of her way to make everyone around her miserable as well.

[quote]including the Prince’s orthopaedic bed

Aw, the poor old, old thing.

After her husband died, Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother would visit one of her childhood homes in Hertfordshire one or two times a year. It was owned and lived in by her nephew and his family. Even though it was family visiting family, there was a degree of formality. The Queen Mother traveled with her own bed linens and towels, and her own liquor. Her nephew, his wife, and their children did not address her as "Aunt Elizabeth", but as "Your Majesty" and "Ma'am" throughout the visits. She also brought along a maid, a page, a lady-in-waiting, and an equerry.

This nephew's older cousins however were allowed to address her as "Aunt Elizabeth", presumably because the older ones were born before she became Queen and knew her just as their aunt.

In contrast, Queen Victoria's last surviving grand-daughter who lived until 1981 often visited friends and family alone, carrying her own suitcase and making her own bed.

What I don't get is that Charles' income from the Duchy of Cornwall. I am guessing that it is the Prince of Wales who receives the income.

Does he own the whole county? Most of it? How did he come to own it? Does everyone who lives there pay him rent? Does this mean no one can buy property or own property in Cornwall because everything is owned by Charles?

Is there no statute of limitations on this nonsense? At what point in history did this get written in stone?

Can someone in the know please explain because it sounds outrageous.

I wish house guests would bring their own linen and towels when they visit me, I wouldn't even mind if they brought a maid with them.

I want to hang out with Robert Downey Jr's furniture and Charles' whisky.

R105, he doesn't own the entire county. The Duchy of Cornwall which is held in trust for the heir to the throne doesn't even own all of Cornwall. The Duchy owns parts of Cornwall, both farms and commercial real estate. It also owns investments in other counties and in London itself. The Duchy also is in charge of other holding companies which own property in North America and Europe. Charles has nothing to do with the day to day decisions and operations of the Duchy. It's all done by administrators and has been for centuries. Property can be added to the Duchy's holdings and property can be sold from the Duchy's holdings. Rents are not paid directly to Charles as you suppose. He receives a share of the Duchy's revenues, after administration costs, salaries, and taxes are paid. Of his share of the revenue, Charles pays a voluntary income tax of between 25-30%.

He provides input into the Duchy's running and has several pet projects through the Duchy, but it's not his own personal little fiefdom.

itchy fucky duchy

Obviously, people invite them over, so they are okay with it. I think England she kick this royal bullshit to the curb.

[QUOTE] What I don't get is that Charles' income from the Duchy of Cornwall. I am guessing that it is the Prince of Wales who receives the income. Does he own the whole county? Most of it? How did he come to own it? Does everyone who lives there pay him rent? Does this mean no one can buy property or own property in Cornwall because everything is owned by Charles? Is there no statute of limitations on this nonsense? At what point in history did this get written in stone? Can someone in the know please explain because it sounds outrageous.

Charles receives the income as he is also Duke of Cornwall.

The Duchy has existed since 1337, it isn't just in Cornwall it encompasses 205 sq miles and covers 23 counties.

The income is from a mixture of farm rentals, leases and development.

If you want to see what a real Duchy looks like google The Duke of Westminster. The income from that is outrageous.

The Duchy of Cornwall built this town, Poundbury several years ago

Charles seems ghastly and I can't imagine he will last long as King of England.

R37 You are SOOOO right about republicans here in the U.S.!

I think once the queen passes, the royals are fucked. They only like her.

They can come visit me but they must bring Windsor Castle with them and reassemble it in my backyard.

More Princess Margaret stories, please! I love reading what a [] she was.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Why didn't Charles marry Camilla in the first place instead of Diana? If she was "unsuitable" back then, why is she "suitable" now?

R117 You have to watch the Tracey Ullman spoof of Margaret - she captures Margaret's joie de vivre perfectly.

Camilla was a whore back then and still is. Standards have lowered.

I think the only thing that will save him is he'll be so old when he becomes King everyone will just roll their eyes and sort of say oh, grandpa.... that's just how he is.... the focus will be on William and his family. And Megan, trying to pull focus.

[quote]I think once the queen passes, the royals are fucked. They only like her.

I beg your pardon??

Skip all those losers, have it go straight to me!

Tracey Ullman as HRH. The character was never called Princess Margaret, but it was obviously based on her.

By popular request: Princess Margaret dining with "commoners"

I am much smarter and much cuter.

Watch what you say!

.....

Sory, here's the insufferable Princess Margaret dining out with commoners spoof. By Tracy Ullman.

[post redacted because independent.co.uk thinks that links to their ridiculous rag are a bad thing. Somebody might want to tell them how the internet works. Or not. We don't really care. They do suck though. Our advice is that you should not click on the link and whatever you do, don't read their truly terrible articles.]

I've always been rather fond of my fellow Scorpio.

r119, Charles dithered. Went off to some military thing or another. And in his absence, Camilla hooked up with A P-B (engaged or married, I'm too lazy to Google).

I still think Kim Kardashian can out do any of them any day with the grandiosity of her own lifestyle. But at least she generates her own wealth.

[quote]Why didn't Charles marry Camilla in the first place instead of Diana? If she was "unsuitable" back then, why is she "suitable" now?

Camilla had a reputation as a party girl, and she was definitely not a virgin. Back in the 70s, these things mattered and she was considered unsuitable to the the wife of the heir to the throne.

Camilla wasn't blue blooded either, one of her great grandmother's had been mistress to Edward VII but Diana came from good aristocratic stock, a direct descendent of James I.

Camilla wasn't aristocracy but her people were part of the establishment and society... gentry if not nobility.

Charles and Camilla are pieces of shit. They did their damndest to destroy Diana. And these people have a fucking nerve to look down on Sarah Ferguson. Diana and Sarah were nothing like the despicable low down scum of Charles and Camilla.

Like we care, r138.

Is Gladys wearing a corset there, R138? She barely moves at all and that "laugh" of hers - whatever.

i can't understand why the British tolerate these repulsive parasites and treat the whole clan to a life of obscene, undeserved luxury. The castles and palaces will be just as picturesque when the parasites are gone. In fact, the public will have better access to the properties when they're empty.

R136, like literally thousands of others, Diana, Camilla and even Fergie are all descendants of one or more of Charles II’s many, many bastards.

His great-grandmother, Queen Mary, was famous for 'lifting' things when she was a houseguest, so Charles pales in comparison.

Queen Mary would invite herself to people's homes, and if she saw something she admired (a painting, furniture, etc.) she would expect it to be given to her right away because she was the Queen. Before Queen Mary arrived as a guest in someone's home, all the valuable objects would be hidden.

Yes, Queen Mary was quite the cunt. Always ashamed of bring born of a morganatic marriage. She was very fond of Faberge- all that was hidden at any house she visited.

Prince Philip wasn’t over indulgent to Charles. Quite the opposite, he thought Charles was a pussy compared to Anne and wanted to make a man out of him.

He obviously didn't succeed, R146.

Interesting that Charles is such a pampered, indulged waste when he's trying to project an image of a streamed down, modern monarchy. Having somebody lather on the toothpaste on your toothbrush every morning doesn't exactly scream 21st century.

Does he also have someone wipe his ass?

[quote]Why didn't Charles marry Camilla in the first place instead of Diana? If she was "unsuitable" back then, why is she "suitable" now?

I imagine her husband objected.

Andrew Parker Bowles had his own mistresses, r149. He was only too happy to be "single."

Yes, but by the time the Parker-Bowles were divorced, Charles has married Diana.

That would be the High Groom of the Royal Stool, r148.

Charles carried on with Camilla and Kanga throughout his engagement and after his marriage. It wasn't just ONE mistress. People really are obtuse to the fuckery of these assholes. It was expected that if Charles fancied your wife, he could have her. In fact, it was considered 'safer' for him to have married lovers because they had more to lose than he did by blabbing. Finally, the understanding is that they can marry, and must remain faithful until the first heir is delivered. Camilla did just that and took up with Charles again right after the birth of her first son. Read the story of Kanga and then come back and tell me how fucking wonderful the whore and her prince are. They're ALL whores, darling. Every damned one of them.

My Mom mispronounced her name "Carmela Bowels."

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Kanga - Lady Tryon - did not end up "homeless" and dying alone.

She was receiving treatment for her conditions (spina bifida, cancer, and spinal injury) at the London Clinic, where she died. " Lord Tryon, their four children, and her brother Derek Harper, were with her when she died". She was not estranged from any of her children.

Sure, R156. Watch the video. They couldn't distance themselves far enough away. These fucks do everything they do for 'appearances.' We know you love the royals. Good for you. I despise them all except for QEII and only like her because she didn't run away to the country during the bombing and wasn't some sit about during the war. When she dies I hope the whole house of Windsor comes crashing down.

5 Part Documentary about Kanga on Youtube.

Sarah Miles is interviewed as one of her friends.

Very dishy 4 part documentary called "Princess Camilla Winner Takes All" on Youtube.

What a detestable pair.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

r149, Clearly the question refers to the time before either Charles or Camilla was married.

[quote]Meanwhile, there was no mistaking the Queen’s frostiness towards her future daughter-in-law.

[quote]During the weeks leading up to the big day, she not only excluded Camilla from both royal ceremonies and official dinners, but also remarked that there was very little special Welsh gold left to make Camilla’s wedding ring.

[quote]‘There won’t be enough for a third wedding,’ she pointed out.

SHADE!

r160 thank you for linking that article. I never understood what people meant when they said Charles is hopeless, but now I see how utterly immature he is. He only cares about himself, and acts like it's the 18th Century. I like the British Monarchy, but I'm opposed to someone so out of touch taking the thrown.

I'm glad the Queen, allegedly, called him out of his bullshit. Love how they make it sound like he just runs off and cries every time he gets smacked down by the Queen.

When Charles started seeing Camilla, she was not a virgin, and so the rumors are that the queen deemed her thus unsuitable as a bride. (Diana was the last prospective bride to the heir to the throne whose virginity was confirmed before marriage--the palace was exceedingly medieval on this matter, and only stopped doing it when William was engaged to Kate, who had presumably already lost her virginity to him if to no one else.)

The other possibility is that Charles was still dithering before he went off on his round-the-world trip in the mid Seventies with the royal Navy--in any case, by the time he returned Camilla had become engaged to Andrew parker-Bowles, and married sooner after his return. But she quickly realized her mistake (Andrew P-B is a notorious philanderer & pussyhound), and she became Charles' permanent mistress.

These people are so cold to each other. If you want your son to avoid marrying someone, why not pick up the damn phone or summon him to the palace? Why would Prince Phillip write him a letter? This is not a real family.

r164, she had the Prince of Wales hanging by her tampon strings, but decided to marry so random aristocrat? I'd call her an idiot but she managed to secure the bag in the end. Thank God she didn't procreate with Charles because their children would have been hideous.

He's a spoiled rotten, petulant man-child.

R164 Kate reportedly lost her virginity to William. Shame the price of doing his duty was a girl very consciously gunning for him.

Watch Charles and Camilla's mounting disgust and anger during a good-natured send-up of The Queen during their tour of Prince Edward Island in Canada. Charles looks awkwardly down at his hands, they both look share disgusted looks with each other throughout the performance, At one oint, Camilla dramatically throws her head back in contempt and on and on the Royal couple go demonstrating their absolute revulsion in full view of their Canadian hosts. Camilla refused to clap at the end and Charles did a Slow Clap. .

Talk about being up themselves!

Good grief!

Just read the link at R160. Loved it.

Say one thing for QEII, you don't want to mess with her. And, boy, can she hold a grudge.

After her open hostility toward Camilla, even on the day of the wedding , one can only wonder at what her real feelings are about Sparkle.

With Cancer rising and Moon in Taurus, it’s little surprise Charles is crabby, self-indulgent and entirely unregal.

You have to wonder what the Queen thinks about her children and grandchildren. She's worked hard her entire life for her country, always putting duty first, and they're all spoiled and lazy. It must really bother her.

Charles just sounds absolutely impossible, like a spoiled child. He must be exhausting for the Royal staff, who I'm sure talk lots of shit about him behind his back.

Why, oh why, won’t HRH EIIR rid us of that meddlesome Sparkle?

I don’t begrudge him a thing, and think it crass that bolshy reporters intrude on his privacy with such facile stories. If they properly did their job the would note that his charitable operation — all undertaken by his own initiative, is the largest in the United Kingdom. If he’s a little eccentric, so what?

Why must you be so NEGATIVE? Why can’t you talk about POSITIVE things?!!!

The way I remember it is that Camilla was Charles' first and greatest love but she wanted a commitment and he wasn't willing to make one, Then she married Andrew Parker Bowles because she wanted to make a family. Shortly after, Charles' family demanded that he marry and he settled on Diana after originally being interested in her older sister. Aristocratic though not technically royal which was what expected at the time

It's all a long time ago so I'm open to correction on any and all of it.

R173 Anne, the Princess Royal is very hard working; she does more public engagements than any of them.

No, Charles was told that Camilla was unsuitable as the wife of the future king back in the 70s. She wasn't a virgin and had a "reputation." He was forbidden to marry her. Of course, in retrospect they should've just been allowed to marry back then. It would've saved everyone from a lot of bullshit and drama.

What brand of beans does he eat for breakfast ?

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

I can't think of anyone worse

Amateurs. Grab the jewels and run.

[quote]With Cancer rising and Moon in Taurus, it’s little surprise Charles is crabby, self-indulgent and entirely unregal.

Both Charles and Camilla have Leo rising.

[quote]Of course, in retrospect they should've just been allowed to marry back then. It would've saved everyone from a lot of bullshit and drama.

Except then Charles' heir would be her son. It's better as is.

I've often wondered the same thing R141 , but when you take into account the public's apparent need to worship public figures it seems sensible. The British treat their political leaders with contempt , Theresa May has been kicked from arsehole to breakfast-time and quite right too, whereas Trump benefits greatly from the kid gloves 'you have to respect the office of president' attitude in America. Pathetic as it is the Royals act as a lightening rod, especially the cipher-like ones ( Liz2 ) who are pretty empty canvasses the dozy public can project their fantasies onto. I do think they will struggle once Liz2 goes, although there will probably be an initial boost for Charles thanks to the massive wave of royalist sentiment her passing will provoke, but once things settle down that will evaporate fairly quickly.

Loved the imagery of the tipsy queen telling her spoilt son to bog off.

Trust me, brits want Charles and Camilla's asses to be kicked to the curb so bad.

Known doosh rags.

[quote]I do think they will struggle once Liz2 goes, although there will probably be an initial boost for Charles thanks to the massive wave of royalist sentiment her passing will provoke, but once things settle down that will evaporate fairly quickly.

Indeed. Charles will coast for a while on the immense reaction The Queen's unique life will positively create. 'Long live The King.'

However his embedded crankiness and sense of entitlement deferred for (as he cannot but see it) way too long don't bode well. He'll have the feeling of wanting to do too much, inhabit the role in full, with too short a time left to savour the top job as he'd have wished.

Doubtless in this haste and with untrammelled power within the family and strong influence without, he'll tread on toes and put up backs. (Cabinet Ministers are said to dread his private letters.)

Then there'll be the Camilla factor to finesse. Good luck with that PR job. Uneasy lies the head which wears The Crown.

His son is much more beloved. We pray Charles never has to be king, he is a turd.

They'll kill Charles off before they let him become King. It will go from Elizabeth to William.

I don't know anyone in the UK (where I live) who has any interest in the Royals whatsoever. Everyone thinks that they're parasites.

I got talking to a minor aristocrat once who knew both Diana and Charles. He had Xmas cards from them. He said that Di was killed deliberately and that Charles was both an alcoholic and a sex addict. Diana caught him in bed with a valet more than once. There's talk that Charles isn't allowed to be left alone with Williams kids but then I wouldn't leave my kids alone with a drunk either.

MAY THE GHOST OF DIANA PUSH CHARLES OFF THE TOP OF BIG BEN...

or drown him in some squalid pond..

r169 that skit or whatever was in bad taste. For starters the Queen is Her Majesty not Her Royal Highness. Charles and Camilla probably didn't know who the fuck they were trying to announce. Then to have the actor going about with terrible jokes made it rather embarrassing. I'm not a fan of Charles, but I can understand being annoyed by someone playing a caricature of a family member.

r176 and r178, my linked article in r161 should offer edification.

You're a looney bin, r190.

Pish tosh, r189. Why would William be "more beloved" than Charles, let alone "much more"? Wm and "Waity Katy" are seen as Do-littles.

[QUOTE] a girl very consciously gunning for him.

And yet despite this most DLers , even American ones, are firmly Team Kate and anti-Meghan, who the accuse of the same behavior.

Why would that be? What’s different about Meghan, other than being American. Hmmm, who knows.

Great 2 part Youtube video linked below called "Reinventing the Royals"( in 2 parts).

Goes into great depth about how Mark Boland, PR, working for Prince Charles, improved Charles' image after Diana's death and worked to bring Camilla into favor with the public. How he threw other members of the Royal Family under the bus to do so, including William, Harry, and Edward. Finally, QEII had enough and sent one of her trusted people to take over Charles' publicity office, leading to Boland's resignation.

Afterward, Boland started writing a column with negative descriptions of members of the RF. He described Charles as ..."flawed, petulant, self-pitying and a broken Humpty Dumpty". Andrew was described as "stupid, lazy, fat and arrogant". And Harry as "stupid, gullible, with revolting friends".

Very dishy with interviews with lots of the reporters. Explains the rules they worked under regarding pictures of the young William and Harry.

Also described how William realized his phone had been bugged leading to a big scandal about the press bugging people's phones.

One of the those who appears in various clips is the younger Piers Morgan, who in these clips is clearly a slimy individual.

If Elizabeth dies and Charles becomes Queen, what happens to Prince Philip?

What a fucking cunt! Moving the whole room? Even paintings? Too much!!

R198 He will be allowed one more dram of whiskey a day.

Today I heard of an entire shanty town being washed away in a flood and families having lost absolute everything. And I thought “How dreadful, how will they relax tonight without their paintings of the Scottish Highlands”

r196 Meghan is a vapid self-promoting media whore. Kate had some class about the whole thing.

Kate and William knew each other for 7 years before they got married. They broke up once and then got back together. They saw a lot of each other while they were at university. Their getting together was not sudden or unexpected.

Harry and Sparkle have known each other for a relatively short time. During that time they were not spending a lot of time together and were living in different countries on different continents. The length of time they have known each other is not even close to the time that William and Kate knew each other before they married.

There is a big difference between these two relationships.

R202 about sums it up.

Imagine working for him. Arriving at the crack of dawn to be told Charles, whose entire day consists of being driven out to the opening of a new Art Gallery specialising in Australian Indigenous dot paintings and waving to a few commoners, has decided he’s going to stay with friends in Wales on Friday and you have to organise to have his entire bedroom shipped there. I know the staff probably don’t mind since they signed up for the job, but I’d have an overwhelming desire to give him a backhand. Clearly I’m im not cut out for the role. The people who work for that indulged twat are better people than I am. All 124 of them.

Andrew Parker Bowles was considered the real catch. Camilla was in love with him, Charles was in second place. She got APB to marry her, but he was a philanderer and cheated on her big time. Somewhere in there, she turned back to Charles.

Stevie Nicks has all her furniture shipped too. All her antiques moved to Australia or wherever she’s going and moved into a hotel room. Heaven forbid, she should she be without her 17th century French side table for a week.

R183 Official birth times are often a little off, and sometimes even transpose a.m. and p.m. There is really nothing Leo Rising about Charles, and Pluto 1st House and Sun in Scorpio would be such a distinctive combination. His primary interest in life being houses looking better in the old days is almost stereotypical.

r207 the difference is that Stevie Nicks has worked for and earned every dime she's ever made.

I agree r208, but it’s still a huge and unnecessary indulgence.

Di said sex with Charles was "odd."

Apparently, when the story broke about Charles and Camilla, before APB divorced her, one of the big no-nos that Charles was considered guilty of was screwing the wife of a fellow officer. Supposedly, this is considered beyond the pale.

The Queen sure has some useless kids. Was she a crappy mom?

Andrew Parker Bowles was the real catch? Over the future King of England? Not buying that.

I love royal stories as much as the next person, but it doesn't really matter to C&C what one writes, says, or reveals now about them. He remains the heir to the throne of the United Kingdom; she is his spouse; and, as human beings, they have ultimately been more fortunate in love than many, if not most.

Well, R215 that may be so. But once the Camillagate story broke and APG divorced her (although he behaved "decently" and let her divorce him) some people felt that Charles was then obligated to marry Camilla.

His reputation was in bad shape after Diana's death and that's when Charles hired Mark Boland to repair Charles reputation which he did by making sure there were lots of "Charles as a great single parent" stories which began to turn the tide. Boland's next job was to gradually move along the plan to bring the duo of Charles and Camilla into the public. Watch the link at R197 for the whole story.

Charles moved Camilla into Clarence House barely a year after Diana's death. And Camilla moved in her father and her children. William and Harry were not happy with this invasion and since William was away at school and spent less time there it was Harry who was stuck. This was supposed to give a picture of them all as one big happy family. Which they were not by the idea of William and Harry.

I can understand RDJ bringing furniture/HH goods to filming since actors can be away from home for months at a time. You're basically moving house.

But essentially moving your bedroom for a weekend visit? You might as well stay home.

I can see why people don't like Charles or Camilla, but for the Royal Family, including the Queen, can't they occasionally get out of their own way? Doesn't Camilla sort of fit in with that whole "horsey set" bullshit, much better than Diana? Can't they all just get along?

R191, poor dumb thing, is unaware that "Big Ben" is the clock and not the tower in which it resides. And since that tower is the Elizabeth Tower, it seems especially unfitting to wish that the spirit of the psychologically deranged slut divorcee of Charles should push him from it.

I suspect this is R191, shown here.

If you’re an American and you have a negative opinion on another American marrying into the royal family of another country which you aren’t a citizen of, you’re a fucking idiot. Have a little pride that one of your own broke one of the biggest glass ceilings. Kate isn’t one of your own and newsflash: she’s an aloof twat who wouldn’t give you the time of day. Why? Because she wouldn’t give ANYONE the time of day unless there’s a camera present and she’s forced to. Otherwise she could give a shit.

r220 Sparkle is about one step removed from a Kardashian. Americans don't feel especially prideful.

so here is the thing R220. We over here, this side of the pond, are pretty much a celebrity culture at this point. We don't care, really, but we kind of care about celebrities just because they are celebrities. There is no like or dislike, just celebrity. The number of cunts we "care" about is ridiculous, from actors to producers to TV stars to reality stars to royals to athletes to ... oh fuck, fill in any category you want. we don't care, but we do, but the important thing is it never, actually matters to us, including our own damn stupid president and his own damn stupid family.

R207, What R209 said! I cherish my "second and third-rate" English, Anglo-Indian, and Chinese 18th and 19th Century antiques, and had them all carefully packed and shipped to my new shanty crumbling American home. NOT the same thing.

^ That being said, HRH Prince Of Wales, AKA The Duke Of Cornwall, and HRH The Duchess of Cornwall are an embarrassment and an affront to all decent and self-respecting subjects of GB.

also too, there was this line in the story upthread, that as Duchess of Cornwall Camilla would take precedence over Princess Ann. Why?

Now I know why there was so much talk about skipping him and appointing Prince William monarch when QE passes...

it won't happen, I don't even know why anyone talks about it. the only way the monarchy survives is if it follows every inch of the old forms. no skipping ahead.

and just because everyone is getting stupid, and I like to hear something not stupid, back to black:

He will be nicknamed King Placeholder as he will be biding time between 2 enormously popular royals.

Brits, why do you think a guy raised to be utterly selfish won't be utterly selfish? what do you think is happening? seriously?

r219, Big Ben is the bell, not the clock. If you're going to be a dick to someone you could at least do it correctly. If you don't you look foolish.

this thread is losing the love. everybody, you can hate Camilla and still love one another.

A story I read about Princess Margaret is that she would make her friends repaint their homes before her arrival. She would then stay for weeks, taking over their homes as if she owned it.

Another interesting thing, The movie "The Bank Job" was apparently based on real events.

Do friends invite Prince Charles over to stay? Or does he sort of invite himself? Could he stay at a hotel or are his friends homes so immense it would be ridiculous not to stay there? What are the rules?

In the constipated 'U and non U ' world of the royals and their lickspittle courtiers it is no doubt common to stay in an hotel and much more the thing to be a weekend guest at the estate of some other in-bred Hooray R234 . Charles is a strange mixture of rigid, antiquated formality and new age hippy and has long been a source of amusement and irritation with his well known views, fads and issues. The Queen's popularity seems to stem mostly from her anonymity, her reported conversation is bland to the point of coma, "have you come a long way?" etc. That coupled with her weirdly frugal habits of eating from Tupperware in front of a one bar electric fire and having damp holidays in Scotland endear her to the nation as it looks like she isn't enjoying any of it. The public can tolerate the jewels and golden carriages from her as she seems to only tolerate them herself, giving the impression she'd be happier in a cardigan reading the racing post in front of the one bar, the epitome of British reserve and self effacement She is often described as having never put a foot wrong, which translates into never putting a foot anywhere, whereas Charles' foot has frequently been in his mouth.

You sound like you know them r235. Your description of Charles is exactly as I assume he is.

The next King of England could be the last King of England. The UK is fast becoming a non-white, non-Christian country. One day they may no longer acquiesce to the idea that they are the born subjects of a white Protestant who won a genetic lottery among the descendants of the Electress Sophia of Hanover.

[QUOTE] he will be biding time between 2 enormously popular royals.

William isn’t enormously popular, and neither is his wife.

It's odd how The Queen is low maintenance compared to the rest. She has made several private trips to the Farish home in Kentucky over the years where she keeps horses.

She brings a couple body guards, secretary, dresser and that's it- no food, furniture or other craziness. Eats with the family and fellow horse lovers. No grand dinners- that's what she is trying to escape.

HM is easy like Sunday morning compared to her fussy son. One of her former butlers says she makes no demands for breakfast, often skips it entirely, or she has Kellogg's cereals out of tupperware bowls, which she serves herself.

So if Stevie Nicks and Prince Charles go on a trip and room together, whose bedroom do they bring?

You know what r240 's description of her breakfast habits i quit enduring. For someone so rich, powerful, and privileged to be so humble is admirable.

I would have been corrupted by the situation.

I admire her for being frugal in case there are hard times ahead for her.

It is admirable R242. She usually tries to travel as economically as possible too. She is fond of driving herself too, but she is restricted in many areas. In Scotland her handlers allow her to drive an old Land Rover, and many other simple pleasures most commoners take for granted. According to old magazine articles, untill very recently, she liked to catch her own fish for lunch too when she could.

Well, R169, it begins by referring to Her Majesty as Her Royal Highness, so how could they possible pretend to enjoy it?

She lived through the austerity of WWII, her country was hit pretty hard and didn’t recover until about the time of her coronation in ‘53 or later. I think she tries to live modestly when possible.

Does one really expect much better from a [italic]Glücksburg[/italic]?

When Windsor Castle was being bombed in the Blitz, Elizabeth, Margaret, and the King and Queen would spend the night in the old underground dungeon. They slept on cots, with nothing but candles for lights. I'm sure living through that put things in perspective for the Queen, and she's never forgotten it.

It's easy to forget that she lived her young adult years during WWII with a very real chance that the country would be invaded.

She lived through all the rationing of that period and had to have coupons as did everyone else. And she insisted on joining one of the services as other girls her age did.

Living though this and being smart enough to understand the very real danger to her parents and her family during the early days of WWII would no doubt form the character that we all see.

She was never supposed to be Queen and her future was presented to her when she was still a girl, but old enough to understand how her life had changed.

All these are reasons that so many people have such a fondness for her, even if they do not support the Monarchy as a whole.

Charles, on the other hand, while it's true was deprived of much of his mother's attention after she became queen, comes across as petty, petulant, and oblivious to things that should be obvious to anyone of sense.

I'll be sad to see her go.

Oh, please, the "Windsors" are master manipulators. According to the Paradise Papers, the queen has stashed millions away in off-shore tax havens while her subjects hold her up as some kind of paragon of old-fashioned virtue.

They "Windsor" show up for pubic engagements that average out to a few hours a week; engagements that have no measured effect on whatever charity or business they purport to be endorsing.

The queen also pocketed the money meant for upkeep on Buckingham Palace and now UK taxpayers are going to be paying out 360 million pounds plus to fix it.

[quote]Brits are fuming that taxpayers are funding £369m Buckingham Palace renovation The petition to make the royals pay for the palace renovation has been signed more than 120,000 times.

"Buckingham Palace is about to be given a £369m ($457.5m) refurbishment. Tax payers are paying for it. The Crown and its estates should be made to fund its own renovations," reads a description on the petition started by a person named Mark Johnson.

"There is a national housing crisis, the NHS is in crisis, austerity is forcing cuts in many front line services. Now the Royals expect us to dig deeper to refurbish Buckingham Palace. The Crown's wealth is inestimable."

"This is, in a word, outrageous," the petition continued.

Many people took to Twitter to express their opposition to the expense given the current economic issues facing British people.

[quote]Apparently, when the story broke about Charles and Camilla, before APB divorced her, one of the big no-nos that Charles was considered guilty of was screwing the wife of a fellow officer. Supposedly, this is considered beyond the pale.

I read that APB considered it an honor that his wife was the future King's mistress as though it was a service to the Crown. It's only when the open secret became public through those gross taped conversations that he was branded the cuckold and the marriage had to end.

It seems like there are some Palace forces fighting a proxy war through publication of these tell-all books. Wasn't it about a year ago that Penny Junor, who LOVES, LOVES, LOVES Prince Charles, published a highly complimentary bio about Camilla that practically credits her with saving the monarchy and nursing Charles back to mental health after the dissolution of the marriage to the ragingly unstable Diana? This is the other side's payback, it seems.

The Windsors don't own Buckingham Palace. The people of Britain do. One can argue whether it makes sense to house the monarch in a grand palace, but it makes little sense to me to expect the Queen to pay for renovating the pile when she doesn't own it.

So the people who don’t live in it should pay for it to be renovated r252?

Yes. just as the American public pays to renovate The White House.

Not an apt comparison, R254. For one thing, Americans (supposedly) get to elect their heads of state, but, beyond that, the RF is given a tremendous amount of money, which, if what I'm reading is correct, they are supposed to use a part of for upkeep of Buckingham Palace. The RF didn't, and now the British taxpayer is on the hook, at a time when homelessness is rising and their health system is in crisis.

[quote]r208 There is really nothing Leo Rising about Charles

Yes, there is: [italic]Unexpectedly, a loaf of Italian bread was placed on the table. As an American billionaire reached out to take a piece, Charles shouted: ‘No, that’s mine! Only for me!’'[/italic]

R255, are you saying that the Queen has been pocketing money earmarked by the state for upkeep and maintenance of Buckingham Palace? If that's the case, this money with interest accrued should be used.

Seeing as we all live in a corrupt hell on this planet and the public are at least 35% moron it seems wise to separate the head of state from political leader, otherwise the moronic public are free to elect the likes of King Trump R255. Better to provide those who need to bow and scrape with a non political figure. The Royal Family are a revolting collection of barely adequate, socially awkward nonentities, my suggestion would be to elevate a citizen who had distinguished themselves in some humane way, deserved the attention and represented the best traits of the country, they could assume the role for a set period and then be succeeded by another who deserved it. Anyone can wave and shake hands.

R254 If the people are like landlords who allow the Royal family to live there rent free, then surely they should have access to the palace, how much is spent and a say in how it is refurbished. They should also have the right to kick them out too.

Aren't White House renovations, new china, etc. covered by private donors?

Redecorations are covered by private donors. Renovations are a government expense.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[quote]They "Windsor" show up for pubic engagements

That sums them up nicely.

That Michael Fawcett must hate himself. In this day and age it must be utterly degrading to live to serve a rich twat, especially when you aren’t a pauper yourself and probably, at one point, had other options.

Charles sounds very Marie Antoinette, if not worse.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

I doubt it r266, no gay man has ever, not even in jest, wished he were a Camilla’s tampon as Charles once famously declared. Michael Fawcett on the other hand probably lies in bed fantasising about Camilla having a “riding accident”

George Anthony Smith (13 September 1960 – 24 August 2005) was a former footman and valet in the Royal Household of Prince Charles.

Smith alleged:

that he was raped by Michael Fawcett, a favoured servant of the Prince Charles; and that Fawcett was himself in a homosexual relationship with the Prince of Wales, who protected him.

Last night Sunday tabloid newspapers ensured that Prince Charles and his private office were beset by a new wave of extraordinary claims. In a bizarre twist, a front page story in the News of the World claimed that Sir Michael Peat, the Prince's private secretary, had asked Mark Bolland, the Prince's former deputy private secretary, in a phone call: "Do you think Charles is bisexual?"

But the Queen does own Windsor Castle and when it caught fire she insisted the public pay for its millions of pounds repairs. That was appalling.

Actually, Buckingham Palace was opened to tours to help pay for the Winsdor repairs- which she doesn't own.

I beg your pardon. Indeed its Lancaster Castle she owns, not Windsor.

R256 You made me laugh, but I take it you’ve never gotten between a hungry Cancer (or Taurus) and “their” food.

It’s very contradictory. As an institution they are reliant on being in tabloid magazines, the subject of gossip and having the commoner interested in them. Yet they make out like it’s so gauche and vulgar. However if everyone lost interest tomorrow, they would risk being ousted. It’s happened to other royal families, so although they’re by far the best known royal family, they can’t afford to have the tide turn dramatically against them or for the public to suddenly grow indifferent to them. They must leak certain information whether true or not (the Queen is frugal), suppress other stuff (Charles is entitled and elitist) and secretly fuel the Kate Vs Meaghan thing the public have invented. Their PR people must work around the clock.

I can't imagine anyone who'd be a worse houseguest.

It's a losing game, r275.

r216, You will note that I used the word "now" in my premise. Moreover, were Charles feeling "obligated" to marry Camilla, he was quite sloth-like in accomplishing this deed, taking eight years.

There was an Abolish the Monarchy petition which ran for six months but only 77 people signed it.

R275 suggests the RF could dwindle in popularity if not kept in the tabloids and that's true, but the most minor royal story gets massive frauttention without any tricks, as you can see from the oohing and aahhing on this thread over the Queen's frugality and wartime experiences, she can even drive a car! Any positive story involving the royals is still hugely exaggerated , every member of the public was in far greater danger than any member of the royal family during the war, and it's a total joke that the Queen is seen as frugal, saving string and turning off lights when she has accrued a massive personal fortune which she refuses to dip into when the public can pay. Some of the public are learning though, after a slump in popularity thanks to the Meghan factor and the public's reliable racism, the palace obviously tried a publicity blitz which described his supposed heroics during his pretend military service ( all royal males display a chestful of undeserved medals ) , this was mocked mercilessly, even in places like the Daily Mail ( Middle England's bible ). The public do love to grovel though and the RF supply a focus for that, it's some color and movement for the masses but at a grotesque cost.

[quote]R15 All his aides were subject to familiar daily tirades. ‘Even my office is not the right temperature,’ he’d moan. ‘Why do I have to put up with this? It makes my life so unbearable.’

Sounds like a mug cradler....

Well I would be r281, but the mug was too warm.

Up thread, does Princess Anne have to curtesy to Camilla? Based on what I've read about Kate/the Yorkies: if Charles is not around, Camilla curtsies to Anne, who was born a princess. If Charles, as heir, is present, Anne curtsies to Camilla. I've never seen it mentioned in the papers though.

The Queen has retained whatever popularity she has because she's a cypher. No interviews, just small talk when she meets the public. People can project whatever they want upon her. Charles seems unwilling or incapable of that kind of restraint.

[QUOTE] Charles seems unwilling or incapable of that kind of restraint.

That kind of restraint has nothing to do with what any royal is doing anymore. Queen Elizabeth is the last Victorian. Once she’s gone, I don’t think the public wants a mythic sovereign who no one hears except for the scripted Christmas broadcast. Charles and William have to be with the times, and be approachable and transparent.

"All of the Democracies are bankrupt."

-- Queen Elizabeth

Laphraoig tastes like beer drink from an ashtray.

Erm, drunk

[quote]Prince Charles channeled his dad, Prince Philip, and made a surprising gaffe while in Australia on Wednesday when he swore during a live radio interview. The royal, 69, who is on a seven-day tour of Australia with wife, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, was caught off guard when he was asked to comment on claims he brings with his own personal toilet with him when he’s traveling.

[quote]Is it true that you carry your own toilet seat when you travel?” a Hit105 host asked the prince at an event in Brisbane.

[quote]“My own what?” Charles replied, before adding: “Oh, don’t believe all that crap.”

[quote]The radio host then asked Camilla to back up his claims, asking her: “So he doesn’t carry his own toilet seat when he travels?”''

[quote]“Don’t you believe that!” she replied.

So they actually had the audacity to Prince Charles and Camilla about the story of him carrying his own toilet set.

Crap doesn't really qualify as a 'swear word' in the UK.

I honestly do not see how the British public can go along with anything so antiquated and outlandish. When they see the royal family all decked out in ermine robes and enormous bejeweled crowns, sitting on a golden throne, and people bowing down, do they not wonder what kind of farce is taking place?

Kiss my royal ass, drunken whore.

R290 The other choice would be an elected Head of State and we can see that is working so well in the US.

R288 Of course he doesn't carry his own toilet seat wherever he goes. A servant does that for him!

Not just the seat, the whole Royal Crapper. Or the Throne, as Camilla humourously calls it.

I need it by my bed.

Traveling with your own bed, linens, toilet seat - I can almost forgive. But bringing paintings and art - that’s batshit crazy. Kinda makes me like him. I love to see people take it way past the limit.

Charles takes after his uncle, The Duke of Windsor in more ways than he or his family would ever admit.

R125 I love the way her eyes glaze over when she says "Goodbye".

Bumo

And they all thought I was a bit excessive for schlepping my own personal toilet seat around the world. Hmpf!