Another mark of approval by the Queen for Camilla: The Most Noble Order of the Garter

Jesus! What's wrong with her face?!

For wearing garters? They ARE nuts over there.

Camilla is a vile, monstrous creature, too bad the cancer rumors weren't true a few years back.

Most noble Horseface of the Royal Stables. Custodian of Prince Charles as a Royal Tampon.

I bet she’s never wished cancer on anyone, R3, you fat, ignorant, hypocritical yank.

My grandmother would never name Camilla or Wallis Simpson. She always called them "That woman!" It wasn't a positive gesture.

Your grandmother obviously had a keen eye for floosies.

@r3, "Camilla is a vile, monstrous creature, who killed her own cancer"

Fixed it for you

"The Most Noble Order of the Garter"

Finally, Camilla's leggins will no longer droop and pucker around her ankles

She already had a face lift in NYC before her marriage to Charles. She also had her teeth fixed.

It's not like the Queen has much choice in the matter. And camilla has kept a low profile and not had any drama

"She also had her teeth fixed. "

See, I knew she was anti-British. A slap in the face to the Queen Mum

Neighhhhhhh!

Love camilla

She's a terrible babysitter.

@r12, "Love camilla "

Yeah, she was great in that Disney flick...

She's the Princess of Wales (in fact if not styled as such) and she will be the queen consort of England within the next five-ten years, and you're surprised she's been given this honor???

"She's a terrible babysitter. "

She has a way with children a mother could only envy *sigh*

5-10 years? That is funny. She could get her promotion in the next 5-10 minutes.

What a useless hag.

[quote] 5-10 years? That is funny. She could get her promotion in the next 5-10 minutes.

The next 5-10 minutes would indeed fall under the time frame of "the next 5-10 years." So, no, it's not that funny.

Camila does seem like a down ass bitch.

It seems like she's had that same hairstyle since she first started dating Charles.

It’s telling the world that Biden farted that proved she is Queen material.

That strumpet

Charles nagged the Queen into giving Camilla the Royal Family Order and the Royal Victorian Order with the reasoning that it would be better for the future of the monarchy (ie him) if Camilla were to receive visible recognition for her role in the royal family. He probably did the same regarding the Order of the Garter.

[quote] Charles nagged the Queen into giving Camilla the Royal Family Order and the Royal Victorian Order with the reasoning that it would be better for the future of the monarchy (ie him) if Camilla were to receive visible recognition for her role in the royal family.

Link please.

Why do people hate camilla?

Some teeth whitener would've probably been a better present. And a set of those invisible braces.

She'll be queen. The wife of a king is always elevated to queen even though the husband of a queen does not get the status of king. The King is worth more than the Queen in the deck.

[quote] My grandmother would never name Camilla or Wallis Simpson. She always called them "That woman!" It wasn't a positive gesture.

Funny, my husband refers to Meghan as "that BLOODY woman!"

I like her. I'm glad Charles & Camilla were able to be together.

The old broad has weathered and smartly navigated the BRF for years. I say she deserves everything she can grab with her withered, cigarette stained hands.

I don't thnk she actually exists.

She'll never be Queen. This was a condition of the marriage.

I think she's stupendous

She might not go by the term queen, but she'll still be a queen. Kind of like how Lady Louise is a princess but doesn't use the title.

R9, I think it’s safe to say that after Camilla’s affair with Charles, which lasted throughout his entire marriage with Diana, and tampon-gate, both Charles and Camilla have caused more than enough “drama” and embarrassment to last a lifetime.

The British rags have done a fine job in rewriting history once Charles married the Rottweiler, which just shows how closely the BRF and the British media cooperate. They’re all trash.

R4 Compared to Charles, she is a beauty.

R28, She will not be Queen, she’ll only be a Consort. Thems the rules!

The Queen's fondness for horses is legendary.

The English look so, well...English.

Things like this didn’t happen when Phil was around to put a halt to it.

What tf they keep giving each other awards and titles??

R42 hon, that’s what they do. Pat each other on the back for doing fuckall. Why do you think they live so long? STRESS FREE! Imagine never having to worry about money and being worshipped daily?

[quote]after Camilla’s affair with Charles, which lasted throughout his entire marriage with Diana

There is no proof of this and I'm pretty sure it isn't true. It has been conveniently forgotten by those keen to jump on the Diana bus that Charles had THREE married women as his "close confidantes" when he met Diana, of whom Camilla was only one. There was also Lady Dale Tryon, and I forget who the third was (I'm remembering this from the time it happened). He seemed equally close to all of them; if anything Dale had more prominence. After Diana's wedding they were all dropped -- and, just for the DL, Diana also fired his long-time valet. Oh, and they were ALL at the wedding, not just Camilla. (I can't swear to the valet.)

Charles said during the claim and counter-claim War of the Waleses that he had done his best to make the marriage work and had only taken up with Camilla [again] after it became clearly unworkable. That fits with the observations of many of the press on that tour of Australia he did with Diana in 1983. Even when interviewed at the time of the separation, when they had more understanding of the relationship, several of them said he appeared genuinely besotted with her at that time.

There is also the question of Camilla's own motivation. She had not long before left an indecisive Charles standing and had married Andrew Parker-Bowles, and she had young kids. Diana's narrative is that Camilla was sleeping with Charles throughout this period and on into his marriage to Diana. AP-B apparently wasn't faithful so she probably thought nothing of the odd aristocratic indiscretion, but knowing what she's like, does anyone really think Camilla spent her youth undermining someone else's marriage just for the sake of it? There was virtually no hope in the 1980s the PoW was ever going to be allowed to divorce, let alone marry a divorcee. Alternatively, can anyone really hear Camilla saying, "I can't LIVE without you!" And if you can - then why didn't she wait longer for him to propose in the first place, and get the titles and the loot as well? Isn't it more likely that she relaxed back into her own marriage and let him have a go at his, and that they only came together again when both marriages were failing? I can see Camilla's jolly, sensible demeanour becoming more and more attractive the longer Charles was married to someone who kept throwing herself downstairs, crying in the limo between public engagements, flagrantly upstaging him in public and stalking other men in private.

The motivations suggested here are all speculation and could be wrong, but please be advised, so is The Crown. It's not the truth, people.

Even if Camilla waited for Charles she was definitely not a suitable candidate to marry him. She was a known “party-girl”

One can imagine it getting lost in the sofa cushions amongst the ciggie ash, biscuit crumbs, and dog hair.

[quote] but knowing what she's like, does anyone really think Camilla spent her youth undermining someone else's marriage just for the sake of it

Yes.

R38 There are two types of British Queens - Regnant and Consort. Interestingly, a woman gets to be called ‘Queen …….’, whereas they have all sorts of rules and hoops around ‘Princess’ - which Diana never was, except when Princess of Wales. The post divorce title - ‘Diana, Princess of Wales’ was supposed to be a come down, not a promotion.

R44 speaks the truth. Also, Diana suffered from bad mental health issues - no one seems to want to acknowledge this. She threw herself down some stairs while pregnant with her child - that alone is testament to some serious mental health issues. Because she was so young when she married Charles - and because of the era in which they lived - Diana undoubtedly was undiagnosed and had no mental health support. It wasn't until the pressures of motherhood and princess-hood got piled on that she began to crack. Charles is no innocent person here, but I totally believe that that he gave the marriage a good solid go and that Camilla tried to stay out of it.

This narrative that Diana was an innocent, pure, perfect creature who was preyed upon by Camilla and Charles makes for a nice royal soap opera, but it isn't true.

R48 she lost the HRH after the divorce. She was always Diana, Princess of Wales while married. She was a Lady but never Princess Diana in her own right.

During her marriage, she was HRH The Princess of Wales. After her divorce, she was Diana, Princess of Wales.

Camilla is hideous, but Charles is certainly no looker, they are perfect for each other. Diana was way too good for Charles, he didn't deserve her.

[quote] both Charles and Camilla have caused more than enough “drama” and embarrassment to last a lifetime.

HAH. We're not finished yet.

Diana was nuts in a bag.

The Queen has officially lost control of her mental facualties. If the rest of her friends and family are smart, they'll work on getting all the honours, jewelry, properties, and money they were previously denied.

r55 despite claims to the contrary, comfortable surroundings, i rather thought they were prostitutes of the state forever locked into debt and rolled out as figureheads or scapegoats to shift focus off the nobles and rare electees that rule the govt. the og reality show

Honest question: why do we care? I'm not a royalist AT ALL but come on, Diana has been dead for 25 years, Charles has now been married to Camilla longer than Diana and had Diana lived, I'm sure she would be remarried by now. Who cares? Get over it, people get divorced all the time now. I've never got the vile hatred for Camilla. Yeah she looks like the dog's breakfast, but Charles ain't a looker himself.

[quote] She will not be Queen, she’ll only be a Consort. Thems the rules!

Actually, R38, thems not the rules. She will become Queen on Charles’ becoming King. She will be coronated with him the following year

I don't understand people on here getting so caught up in the Royals unless they're British and paying for it all. That said, I have two friends in London who know the Duchess quite well and they adore her. So, I hope they let the old girl the big crown and all the jewels.

Camilla will undoubtedly become queen, but Clarence House better be working on a PR strategy since it will represent a reversal of position. They proactively offered Camilla would not use the title Princess of Wales or become Queen consort when Charles ascended to the throne.

" I have two friends in London who know the Duchess quite well and they adore her. "

Nah, I know those two, nothing but a couple of royal suck-ups

"She will be coronated with him the following year."

Crowned, I think, is the proper verb.

Is anyone really going to care besides a handful of Diana obsessives? The British public have bigger issues than Camilla's title.

R63, I don’t know that you have to be “Diana obsessed” to remember Tampon Charles and Camilla. They’re both disgusting.

R64 remember is one thing, give a damn is another. Anyone who still cares about the triangle 30+ years later, and 25 years after one of them is dead, is obsessive.

Camilla is HRH The Princess of Wales right now. That’s just how it works. When Charles is coronated she’ll be a Queen. Whether she chooses to use that title, it’s up to them. But she will hold the titles.

R66 is correct. And she will use the title of Queen Consort.

^ Why, was "Queen Homewrecker" taken?

POOR SAINT DIANA O M G

R44 Yup, the RF has tried to cast Charles and Camilla as star-crossed lovers but back in 1973 Camilla wanted Andrew Parker Bowles not Charles. Charles had other “confidants” pre and post marriage Kanga and I think Eva O’Neill (mother of Pss. Madeleine’s husband Chris). In spite of the obvious perks, marriage to Charles probably isn’t a picnic, so if extra honors make it easier for her to face the day, good for her. It’s kind of a sweet love story in its own way…the beautiful, young woman thrown over for the plainer, yet more age-appropriate consort.

R66, are you done drooling yet over Camilla? Maybe you should volunteer as a stable hand, you could clean her hooves personally.

[quote]because of the era in which they lived - Diana undoubtedly was undiagnosed and had no mental health support.

Not so. One of the ways we know Meggsy is lying is that the RF got Diana [no doubt eminent] psychological support quite early on. They knew what was going on and could see how dangerous she could be to the Firm. The linked article details all the people who dealt with her. (You pick the one she charmed.)

It's also interesting that the doctor with the gloomiest view of Diana's case thought her condition might be able to pass to her children. Not looking at anyone in particular.

Camilla is a slime bucket, nobody gives a shit about her except Charles and deranged anti Diana loons still crawling out from under a rock to this day.

I heard she farted and blamed it on Joe Biden.

It is "anti"and deranged to link to a list of the psychiatrists she saw, R73? In response to an assertion that the RF didn't get her help?'

Or are you of the view that saying someone has a mental illness is "anti" her?

The monarchy is hopelessly antiquated.

And yet, her brother was so fine looking…

Even a dimwit like Camilla is smart enough realize that referring to herself as "Princess of Wales" would be the biggest joke in the history of the monarchy.

I don't actually "like" public figures who I'll never meet. But I think I would like Camilla. She's smart and brave, and I aspire to those qualities.

I was team Diana--fully believed she was being gaslit by Charles who never loved her. On the other hand he couldn't marry the woman he actually loved, Camilla, because her hymen was in shreds. Those were the days, people.

He wasn't ready to get married when Camilla was free anyway. So she married someone else.

[quote] The monarchy is hopelessly antiquated.

Yes, far better to have heads of state like Trump and Johnson.

Boris Johnson isn’t head of state R82.

Trump had us going in the right direction. Democrats have utterly destroyed us.

^ Klan Granny trash

^ And that's being kind

Camilla isn’t hideous. she looks like a typical upper class country woman, and Charles is completely besotted with her even after all these years. I think it’s a good marriage and I’m looking forward to see her as queen consort.

She’s going to murder Charles then assume the throne as Empress of the British Empire!

What r31, r44 and r49 said.

I couldn't wait to see pix of Diana. Her stardom was (and, apparently, still is, to some) singular; a thing apart from any other public figure in my lifetime, and this was pre-internet and social media, when it took work and/or super-human charisma, to maintain public interest.

Still, you can't read accounts of those who knew her, and spoke and wrote about her (Tina Brown comes to mind) and not realize Diana's cheese was off the cracker. She'd have been a miserable wreck no matter who her husband was.

Ultimately, the Windsors, and then society's, antiquated, even for the 70s and 80s, notions of requiring a virginal bride are to blame.

True, Charles, too, may have ended up divorced no matter who he married, but, if he would have been allowed let his hesitation about marrying Diana run its course, perhaps they wouldn't have married and she would still be alive today.

I really, really cannot wait for Tina Brown’s new book on the family post-Diana.

She’s hideous

She was a mistress looking to be the Queen to the head of the monarchy.

Like me, she's almost there.

[quote] I couldn't wait to see pix of Diana. Her stardom was (and, apparently, still is, to some) singular; a thing apart from any other public figure in my lifetime

I just don't get it, and never have. And I am of her generation.

R81 I know that but even if she got divorced they couldn't have married back then because she was divorced and her hymen was in shreds.

Diana's hymen was a firm trampoline, verified by a doctor so Charles said "Eureka! Will you and your hymen marry me??"

Her face looks like a scary Halloween rubber mask! She really looks like she would scare the children.

Camilla actually was crazy about the guy she married. He was quite the catch. I think Anne dated him as well. At that time, Charles wasn't her first choice.

Reminds me of the expression from around the time of Jackie Kennedy. Women marry the first time for love, the second time for money and the third time for companionship. Charles married Camilla for love and companionship and Camilla married Charles for money and companionship. No need for either of them to stray, they both got the right combination the second time.

Her hymen was in shreds

No one wants to think of Camilla and hymen in the same sentence, it's terrifying.

^ Not as bad as the thought of Camilla losing her virginity to that soccer team

[quote] I just don't get it, and never have. And I am of her generation.

r93, You reminded me of a remark someone made to me about Diana after her death- "I always thought her face looked like a man's".

Damn, now when I see pix of Diana, I see that, too! I almost wish I hadn't heard that remark.

Anyway, I know what you mean. I have nothing against Marilyn Monroe. I think she had untreated mental illness and was terribly exploited by the hetero males in her life.

But I remain completely unmoved by her stardom.

Why blame Camilla? She was his first choice but they wouldn't let him marry her. He was always in love with her but was forced to marry Diana. The only good thing Diana did for him was have two good looking sons.

[QUOTE] The only good thing Diana did for him was have two good looking sons.

Debatable. They’re becoming bald as eggs and the Windsor genes are starting to creep in.

Diana was the most beloved human being to ever walk on the face of this earth!

I'm an American, and I adore Camilla. Come at me, whores. #YaaaasssQueen

What does you being American have to do with anything R104?

I repeat: do stop watching The Crown.

Sorry, that made no sense without the quote. Here goes again:

[quote]She was his first choice but they wouldn't let him marry her. He was always in love with her but was forced to marry Diana.

I repeat: do stop watching The Crown.

—R44

You can watch The Crown and recognize that it's historical fiction. Most of us watching it aren't treating it like it's a documentary. It's obviously a soap opera.

A soap opera script that went terribly, terribly wrong for Diana.

She helped make it terribly, terribly wrong for herself.

Camilla, Most Noble Steed.

R26 Pure misogyny.

She has the nerve not to be pretty yer to have gotten the love of possibly the world's highest status husband, whose much younger and prettier first wife made his life miserable, but whom they have turned into a saint for to her looks and early death.

They adore Liz Taylor who broke up not one but two marriages with young children involved and humiliated wives . . . But she was a STAR, baby! And gorgeous!

The first Mrs De Winter also broke up a marriage, had affairs, stalked one of her marks, and her last BF was a sleazy playboy tied to his corrupt father's rich cock . . .

But, hey, it's really Camilla who's Baaaad.

Camilla and Charles on the other hand really have managed a successful marr6and she's probably given him the only domestic peace he's ever known.

Whilst Diana went on making the same mistakes with men over and over till her last mistake cost her her life.

It's Diana who was the horrible slag.

But she looked so much better at it that all these shallow poufs don't care.

Camilla looks earthy, fun, funny, warm, and like she doesn't take herself too seriously. She took years of hate and threats to stand by Charles, and she has money of her own.

You would never have found Cammie wasting a hearty roast beef and Yorkshire pudding and a pint with her finger down her throat in the loo.

You know, so she ould look good for the cameras in all those slinky clothes?

What r112 said.

Diana was the most beloved human being in the world. While Camilla is essentially somebody that most most in the world don't give a shit about!

[quote]Diana was the most beloved human being in the world.

Diana who?

(F-ing Americans.)

You think Asia and Africa didn’t go crazy for Diana? The landmine saint? She was huge in pop culture all over the globe. You must be young?

R116 We all know she was a pop culture icon. She was also a narcissistic shit who did everything she could to overshadow her husband, leaned her older son for the love she couldn't get from her husband, created a freaking demon out of her younger son who saw the other brother as the favourite, stalked a married man she was after, broke up one man's marriage, and the last man she was involved was a creep with another fiancee parked not too far away from the yacht on which Diana spent the last weeks of her life teasing and baiting the paps.

She was no saint, in some ways she was actively destructive in her personal life, and the fact is, Camilla succeeded where Diana failed: Camilla made him happy, stuck by him through thick and thin, never overshadowed him, and did a surprisingly good job of consort. She's never made the flamboyant spectacle of herself that Diana was constantly doing.

And that's why the Queen is honouring her.

Diana made eating disorders terribly fashionable. Sadly, since her death people have become fatter.

Is Camilla related to Madame?

LOL, while Charles is about as interesting as watching paint dry, even someone like Camilla couldn't possibly overshadow him, even if she tried. NOBODY gives a shit about her! But, of course, you can continue dreaming of eating her snatch, r116!

For someone as interesting as watching paint dry, he has a curious attraction for worldwide media and quite a few attractive women.

Diana was a fool. Camilla isn't. The survivor is the moral of the story. Not who wants either to suck Charles' cock or eat Camilla's snatch.

Neither of which are relevant to why the Queen is honoring the Survivor.

Diana was crazy, but she was also used by Charles. No way could the mother of his children be homely like Camilla. She might have some good pussy, but had they married and had issue, those spawn would have been hideous.

R122 in fairness to Charles, he was basically forced into marriage with Diana. He was in his 30s, he needed to get married to someone with a "spotless reputation," e.g. a virgin, and Diana was basically that girl. Diana and Charles shouldn't have been nothing more than a fling but it's all history now and Diana is long since dead. William is much more Windsor than Spencer, and Harry has basically inherited the lack of intelligence and emotional instability of the Spencer.

To the victor belong the spoils. I have to hand it to Camilla, she stayed the course and will probably end up Queen of England.

Even though Kingship isn't automatic when marrying a Queen, the reverse is not true. The KIng's spouse always has the title Queen. When Charles married Camilla they knew sentiment was so strong and raw over Diana's death that it would be inadvisable to give Camilla the title she was normally due, Princess of Wales. Furthermore, any discussion of Camilla eventually becoming Queen was quashed by the Palace and Charles, still reading the room. If forced to respond, it was said that upon Charles ascending the throne, Camilla would be titled 'Princess consort'. This would be unprecedented in England or pretty much anywhere else--the wife of a KIng is not a Queen??

In 2018 all mention of this or any discussion of Camilla's eventual title was scrubbed from the Royal websites.

R123 - I agree up to a point - I would, though, use the word "pressured" rather than "forced". He was 32, if he'd told Mum and Dad he really didn't love her and he needed more time, they'd have said, "Fine."

Robert Lacey once pointed out that Diana succeeded where his other girlfriends failed because she was savvy enough to seduce the press and public first. Her timing and her optics couldn't have been better.

But he didn't have to marry her. I think he was just run to ground at last. Giving in was his own decision.

The hate towards Camilla is purely misogynistic. It's all rooted in the fact that Charles loved her despite his much more physically attractive first wife. In reality, Charles and Camilla is love story with a complex but overall happy ending. While Diana was much more beautiful, Camilla is much more grounded, intelligent, funny and supportive. She has been in his life for almost 50 years, they've been married longer than he was married to Diana and while she is perhaps not beloved, Camilla has gone from the most hated woman in the UK (someone the Queen referred to as that "wicked woman" for years) to one who is respected now.

R124 - If they'd entered into a morganatic marriage, then the King's wife not being Queen would have been all right. But they didn't. I'd wager a good bit that behind the scenes, before Charles proposed, discussions were held about the possibility, just as they were with Edward and Wallis. But fair play to Charles, that would have been setting up Camilla as Less Than right out of the gate, and if discussed face to face, was swiftly declined. Edward felt the same.

Morganatic marriages are rare, but they're used to defuse situations just like these: a King marrying a less than popular or low-born wife, and to soothe public feeling, going the morganatic route.

[quote]The hate towards Camilla is purely misogynistic. It's all rooted in the fact that Charles loved her despite his much more physically attractive first wife.

Can a misogynist hate one woman because they prize another woman more?

There is no reason to have a morganatic marriage in the 21st century. None, at all. Charles's position as future Head of the COE aside, which made things complicated.

Single heir marries a 2nd wife, just like more than 50% of his future subjects. She is his wife, full stop, and gets all the trappings and courtesies associated with that legal and social role.

[quote] The hate towards Camilla is purely misogynistic.

But Camilla is a horse, not a woman.

"So it’s like a coin from the Franklin Mint? "

I COLLECT FRANKLIN MINT!!

I think she's stupendous!

R132 - And you would know, Mrs Woodville . . .

You can tell us now: was it you sent the yobs in to dunk the Duke of Clarence in the malmsey?

Come on, spill it.

[quote]Ultimately, the Windsors, and then society's, antiquated, even for the 70s and 80s, notions of requiring a virginal bride are to blame.

You just thank your lucky stars for those antiquated notions because if Charles and Camilla had been allowed to marry young, imagine mugs on the children. The Mother Theresa monarchy and not because they look like good deed doers. They barely pulled it out of the fire with Diana as a half the assembly line.

R133 he had chance after chance after chance. I hope he died happy.

And I'd never spill wine.

[quote] I would, though, use the word "pressured" rather than "forced". He was 32, if he'd told Mum and Dad he really didn't love her and he needed more time, they'd have said, "Fine."

Not entirely true. Philip wrote to Charles telling him to piss or get off the pot with regard to proposing to Diana. They didn't force him to marry her, and if he'd let her go they'd have been annoyed but OK with it, but they weren't going to give him more time to get to know her. Largely, of course, because she was playing the press off a brake, which added to the pressure on everyone.

At the time the senior Royals probably thought that behaviour was innocent. If they'd had any idea it was purposeful they might have given Charles more time to size her up.

Please r136. He knew her entire family, and dated her sister. It's not like he met her out of the blue.

I agree, Charles and Camilla are a perfect match, dull as can be and ugly as fuck. Diana was exactly the opposite & way too good for Charles, he didn't deserve her!

R138 Yes, we sure could tell what Diana deserved by the man she ended her life with.

Fuck, Dodi Fayed made Charles look like Sir Galahad.

R135 - You can't blame a man for trying to figure out what the winning side was. Warwick talked me into it! Warwick talked me into it!

[Quote]Robert Lacey once pointed out that Diana succeeded where his other girlfriends failed because she was savvy enough to seduce the press and public first. Her timing and her optics couldn't have been better.

[quote]Largely, of course, because she was playing the press off a brake, which added to the pressure on everyone.

Was Diana this calculating and manipulative with the press prior to marriage? They seemed to follow and harass her. One result was the as the famous diaphonous skirt photo op which was an attempt to get them to leave the kindergarten she worked at. Recall neither she not Kate were given protection officers until their engagements. And post-engagement, she was ensconced at Clarence House with the Queen Mother where the press no longer has access.

My impression is that she started courting press attention once she realized Charles' less than desirable marital behavior on their honeymoon cruise AND she began to understand the magnitude ofher popularity with the masses and how it affected Charles. Per Tina Brown in the Diana Chronicles, the latter occurred during an official visit to Wales where there were throngs of people waiting to see HER not the Prince of Wales. They worked different sides of the crowds and people on Charles' side were visibly and audibly disappointed. It was during this visit and the Australian tour that Charles began to resent here popularity. And Diana learned how to work the press.

I guess it’s oddly appropriate. The Order was founded by Edward III (the Crecy guy) to commemorate the sloppy wardrobe of one of his dancing partners — her blue garter fell off while dancing, a huge faux pas, and Edward gallantly rescued the lady from her embarrassment, picking up the garter and putting it on himself.

So now another monarch tries to rescue another filthy whore.

I think both Diana’s innocence/victimization by the press, and her manipulation of the press, are overstated by different camps. She did try to win public favor and spin the press but she wasn’t as smooth or duplicitous about it as some claim.

It always seemed so pathetic to me that his jealousy became such an issue. Now he's human, so you can accord him a little envy, but practically speaking he created a pretty young princess in marrying her, it was natural and inevitable and why he couldn't have reasoned his way to being pleased at what she was contributing to strengthening the circus in the public mind I don't know. Did he really expect people wanted his big brain over her big heart? Duh. Still wouldn't have solved the fundamental incompatibility given the gap in age and interests but to the extent that jealousy made a bad situation worse it seems like time wasted. One thing I thought she was right about was her observation we could have made a good team. Now, a team has to work together and she wasn't blameless, but had they been able to to get their mutual acts together she was right about the result.

[QUOTE] Camilla and Charles on the other hand really have managed a successful marriage and she's probably given him the only domestic peace he's ever known.

Only because she turns a blind eye to his various mistresses. Charles is incapable of being faithful to anyone, let alone hatchet face Camilla.

[QUOTE] Fuck, Dodi Fayed made Charles look like Sir Galahad

You're a gross racist.

Why is everyone on DL so obsessed over the British Royal family? These people couldn't give any less of a damn about the rest of us and are kept living in the lap of luxury thanks to the stupidity of those who admire them over a status that was undeservingly conferred upon them at birth. They have given everyone ample proof that they are far from intelligent, talented or even pleasant, let alone genuinely nice people. For God's sake, they're not even good-looking! Why should anyone of us be invested in what happens to them, when they couldn't give two fucks about what happens to the rest of us?

This Diana VS Camilla and Kate VS Meghan nonsense also brings this lunacy to the forefront in the absurdest way imaginable. You will never, ever befirned any of these people and they wouldn't piss of you if you were on fire... Why would you be so concerned about the institutions and power structures that keep them where they are, when you're nothing to them?

It's downright insane, to be honest.

[quote]These people couldn't give any less of a damn about the rest of us

Unlike all the other famous people on the planet who got their status sucking Harvey Weinstein's cock? Piss off.

There’s a contingent of people who specifically come to DL to talk about the royal family because they’ve either gotten kicked off other sites, or because they want to cover of an anonymous message board to make racist and abusive comments. They aren’t DL users otherwise.

I was a second wife and I was Queen...for a short time at least.

The only difference, R148, is that the people who slept with Harvey Weinstein are making films or music - they are entertainers who actually earn a living and some people find what they do enjoyable.

What to the members of the BRF do, besides wear ugly clothes, be tabloid fodder and preside over organizations and events that they are unqualified to manage, or even attend? At this stage, they are just reality TV contestants with plummy accents. Do we really mean to admire people like this?

Well, you're among the brainless imbeciles who enjoy worrying about the people who are stending on your bent back, but maybe you ought to ask yourself why it is that you are so concerned about an institution that is based on iniquity, inequality and exploitation, while you literally don't count to those who are a part of it. You may tell me to fuck off as much as you want, but the only one in here who clearly enjoys being fucked over is you, you retard.

Oh, god, R151, the what do they do question has been answered well and fully about a thousand times now.

The fact is these are people occupying an intriguing position, surrounded by wealth, and this is a gossip board.

And if we're the fixated how come I could do this in three sentences and everything seems to take you about three paragraphs and that many more sentences, most of which descend into a hostility that seems excessive compared to your cool analysis of all that ails us.

Now piss off. You're fucking annoying and that's the best you'll ever do.

^ And blocked... I can stand almost anything except stupid.

R149 I come to DL for royal gossip because I like the witty gay comments, the tiara discussions, and the occassional aristo insider-knowledge.

Don't have such a low opinion of yourself. You have a lot to offer!

Mmm, blocking is so satisfying.

R147 R I've been on DL for nearly 10 years and a quick check of my posts showsbobust participation on many other threads.

The KGT is a lying freak who is far more likely to have been thrown off other threads.

And by the way, none of the actors, figure skaters, politicians, etc. talked about here know or give a shot about posters here, either.

So what are YOU two doing here?

^*give a shit

I used to like Diana but I've gotten so sick of her. Especially the more I hear about what a pile of crazy she was. Who can blame Charles, honestly? His wife beat him on their honeymoon because he wanted to paint and then she destroyed his canvases.

And she had a huge nose.

Well she’s been dead for 25 years R158 so it’s probably for the best that you’ve gotten sick of her.

R156, I am just giving my opinion which, guess what? Is just as good as yours. Now, I am perfectly aware of the fact that famous politicians, artists and celebrities couldn't care any less about us. The only difference is that they have actually had to work in order to get where they are. Yes, they may not all be talented or deserving of fame and luck played a key role in their success, but they at least had to risk something in order to get to where they are, and they could lose it all just as well if they are not careful. Isn't that the true indicator of meritocracy?

The BRF are born into absolute privilege and don't do anything useful with it. They are not intelligent, do not have talent and only promote causes that interest them personally, as opposed to things that could truly benefit society. Moreover, they are better known for their affairs and scandals that anything else... If we disparage reality TV freaks, why are we meant to idolize people who contribute just as little to society? Because they've amassed great fortunes through centuries of piracy, slave-trading and abusing their own subjects? Again, what is the positive contribution that they make?

And if you're like one of those stupid office clerks who dream about becoming Kate Middleton, and support the monarchy because they aspire to become princesses one day well, good luck with your absurd delusions. Now, that is what YOU are doing here, and it is downright embarrassing, if you ask me.

[quote]Tradition says that to cover the lady’s embarrassment King Edward picked up the garter, and with the words, ‘Honi soit qui mal y pense’, (roughly translated as ‘shame on anyone who thinks evil of this’), buckled it on to his own leg. The phrase remains the motto of the Order.

[quote]This seems an odd thing to say, even for those far off days, and surprising that the dropping of a garter would ruffle the modesty of a fourteenth century lady of the court.

[quote]The true significance behind this well-known story may well lie in the fact that the ‘garter’ was widely recognised as the badge of a high priestess, or witch, and Edward’s action could therefore have saved Katherine from certain charges of sorcery!

So you’re telling me Tony Blair will be a witch?

It might explain a lot about Margaret Thatcher.

Diana was absolutely stunning. Camilla is the exact opposite. Diana was beloved the world over, nobody even gives a second thought about Camilla to put it mildly. Those that attack Diana, but like Camilla do so because they too are as hideous as Camilla.

Are you an Instagram Influencer, R164? Rarely is that level of superficiality achieved outside that august site.

R160 Jesus, mate, get yourself some help or at least meds.

The only embarrassment on this thread is you and your smug, holier than thou, moralistic, lecturing, faux sociopolitical bullshit.

This is a gossip site.

Since Charles married Di, the BRF has been one of the the biggest juiciest gossip sources in history.

I suggest you don't belong on a gossip site.

And by the way, the British monarchy is over 1,000 years old. It didn't get established by the "slave ttade". The British government was the active party, not the monarchy.

Backed by Queen Victoria, England refused to come to the aid of the South in the Civil War. Lots of Eurooean countries were involved in the slave trade, and lots of Middle Eastern ones.

BY 1840, all the European ones including places like nice little Denmark, which still retains a much loved monarchy (and showed representatives who tried to open negotiations around "reparations" the door), had ceased. There are 8 other hereditary monarchies in Europe.

Open a history book and stoo spewing your puerile bullshit here

And, er, your specific mention of Kate did rather give away your real beef, didn't it, what?

And you're blocked. Go do your Head Boy act somewhere else.

R164 is the alpha and omega of the mental issues that afflict religious idolaters, because that's what Diana and Meghan Worship is: a religion.

Camilla is hateful because she isn't beautiful and didn't make a career out of being a global superstar.

Diana was beautiful and beloved the world over - just not in Kensington Palace where she drove her husband back into the arms of his former lover with her well-documented rages and extravagant emotional demands.

The glaring fact that what Charles needed wasn't a global superstar whobtood pictures, but a supportive wife isn't, in the eyes of the idolaters, relevant to any discussion of either woman.

Ipso facto, any one of us homos who is crass and misguided enough to point out the obvious, is also "hideous".

These people are beyond the reach of reason.

So Diana wasn’t perfect…she came across as a nice lady. Camilla doesn’t. Charles is an arrogant prick.

I think the Portuguese royal family that held the throne of Brazil were very late to give up their slaves. Like, shockingly late- towards the end of the 19th century.

Speaking of marks of approval, the Cambridges are scooping up another prime royal property: Fort Belvedere near Windsor. I guess they're preparing for when George goes to Eton in a few years. It's a signal mark of favor from the Queen, though, to give them a third amazing residence.

The nattering about "they made their money off " is also hilarious.

The current House holding the monarchy came in in 1861 with Queen Victoria, at least a couple of decades AFTER Britain (that is to say, the British nation, not its monarchy) dissolved its relationship with the slave trade.

And the wealth that the Windsors (that is to say, the monarchy and her direct heirs) enjoy is, in fact, the creation of 20th century factors. Although possessed of homes, jewels, horses, and land, the Windsors weren't particularly cash rich. They got rich after an infamous and far more shameful bit of privilege in the form of a tax deal from Inland Revenue in which they were allowed to set a voluntary donation to the Exchequer in lieu of real taxes.

This allowed them to keep a great deal of their personal revenue and invest it in the modern era's markets and real estate holdings, and this, together with the revenues due to the Sovereign from the Duchy of Lancaster and to the eldest male heir from the Duchy of Cornwall, are what has made the family personally wealthy.

Not the "slave trade".

The people who should really have been up in arms at this bit of feudal sleight of hand were the miners, lorry drivers. nurses, bricklayers, postal workers, etc.

All of whom had to pay what Inland Revenue told them to pay.

And, as it stands, JK Rowling is the richest woman in Britain, the Duke of Westminster could buy and sell Charles a few times over, and the Queen at least once, and the biggest landowners in Scotland are a Gulf State billionaire and the Duke of Buccleuch.

By the way, the Duchy of Cornwall was set up at the end of the FOURTEENTH CENTURY to provide a personal income to the heir to head off vulnerability to selling out the state to other states for filthy lucre.

I'm there for criticism of the privilege that got the Windsors off the fucking hook for paying taxes at the rates everyone else did until Windsor Castle caught fire in, what was it, 1993?

But this whole bullshit of they made their fortune off their slave trade is just parroting of shit they here on social media.

The Windsors were never as astronomically wealthy as they are today before the 1920s and afterward. And we have Inland Revenue and a passive population that didn't think to pull out the pitchforks and torches right then.

And that said, I'm still perfectly unembarrassed to gossip about them on a gossip site.

maybe they were cash poor prior to 1920, but as Emperors of India I’m sure they received tons of gifts in tribute. Emeralds and diamonds, ivory and whatnot.

R170 - A fast google brings up numerous stories on this, all acknowledging that it is strictly rumour. The apparent purpose of the move is to be closer to the Queen as she ages, which is farcical, as Windsor is only about a half hour from London (admittedly, traffic permitting). Friends of the royal family are leasing the place and still live there.

The Fort was also mentioned as a possible home for the Sussexes (back in days of yore when really stupid people thought the Sussexes were going to spend their lives as part of the working BRF).

Ditching Anmer Hall isn't such a great look, either, as the Queen paid millions for renovations that closed off a road in the area - she paid for a car park for the local church by way of apologising for the "inconvenience" the security renovations for parishnioners.

Of course, the Sandringham estate belongs to the Queen personally, it's not part of the Crown Estates, so she can do as she likes and tough.

But Fort Belvedere would, admittedly, make sense because of its closeness to the Middletons, and once the Queen dies and Charles takes over and Windsor becomes his secondary private residence, he'll be there more often, as well.

But the thing it utterly ridiculous looking. And if it needs another few million in renovations for a family with three kids under ten, it will look even worse.

Further thought on the Fort Belevdere story . . . if it turns out to be true, can you imagine the frenzy of fury in Montecito?

They get Frogmore Cottage.

William and Kate get an 11th century castle.

I hope the rumour is true just on that basis.

I doubt George and Louis will go to Eton anyway. Charlotte's schooling will also be a consideration. I just don't see William and Kate choosing single sex schools for their children .

Fort Belvedere isn’t an 11th century castle. It’s a “folly” built in the 1700 that was retrofitted into a house in the 1800s. If it looks ancient that was by design, but it’s not authentic—it was originally meant as a playhouse for the residents of the main house. There have been a bunch of renovations since, but I’d imagine given that history it’s a little jumbled inside. The grounds are very nice, though.

Also, the last time the Fort Belvedere rumor was circulating (2019), palace sources said William and Kate wouldn’t move there until after the Queen died. So hearing this rumor pop up again now is a bit ominous to me.

Remember on DL - majority of posters here say NO ONE can break-up a marriage. So it is not Camilla fault Charles and Diana split.

[quote]nobody even gives a second thought about Camilla to put it mildly.

Apparently I do, since I just gave her the Order of the Garter.

R178… um… not true. The DL stuff or the Camilla/Charles/Diana stuff.

They could keep Anmer and have Fort Belvedere. The place may need renovations, but by the time the current family moves out (the patriarch died last year) and renovations are done, George will be getting very close to Eton age. Charlotte can't go to Eton, but there is the well-rated Windsor girls' school right there. William is the heir, and with Harry noped off to California, there is money and space to give the heir and his family even more perks.

R180 you must be new here

DL posters have said

Homewrecker is an ancient term that was once applied to women who had affairs with married men, (as if the man deserved no responsibility for cheating on his wife). And if the affair resulted in a separation and /or divorce, SHE was to blame., not him. Extremely dumb, extremely dated.

A person who causes their divorce by cheating is a person who causes their divorce by cheating. There is no modern use of the word "homewrecker."

Wreaking a home is based on the concept of pursuing a married man and drawing him away from his "perfect" nucellar family, the sacred "home."

None of these things, none of these statuses are true anymore if they ever were. Women are no longer virgin brides marrying for support, men are no longer individuals swayed by an "evil" tempest.

and link below

R180 and

What's up with all these "homewrecking" trolls?

It seems like every day there's another old school actress (Joanne Woodward, Vivien Leigh) getting called a cunt because she fucked a married man. I don't care about "misogyny" regarding slutty behavior, but it seems very suburban housewife to insist someone is an awful person because they had an affair.

Link below

R180 and

DL poster defending Vivian Leigh for being an alleged "homewrecker"

Link

T160. They only promote causes that interest them personally? Do you think they have an inordinate interest in primary schools, business developments, former military personnel, and old people’s homes?

The Most Noble Order of the Tampon is next.

R171, we’ll agree to disagree…

R184, you said majority. Prove it. Cherry picking quotes doesn’t count. There are thousands of posters on here (well, hundreds). A handful of quotes means nothing.

R185 - You left out Holocaust Survivors, the massive spearheading and coordination Kate did for the Five UInder Five project, the Prince's Trust (just possibly the biggest, most successful youth help charity in the world, soon to open an office in New York - Idris Elba is a grad of the programme, oddly, he has only nice things to say about it), art museums (I'm sure the National Portrait Gallery was nothing but grateful to Kate for the PR she got it, and the 50% of the proceeds they got from the best-selling HOLD STILL book she spearheaded, helped select the photos for and wrote the forward for, ditto the mental health charity that got the other 50% of the proceeds).

Ah, er, Camilla took over the patronage of Dr Barnados, And, Domestic abuse is also one of Camilla's pet causes.

OMG - Kate is interested in photography and they made her Patron of the National Portrait Gallery! OMG, Camilla has a family member who suffered serious domestic abuse and now she supports domestic abuse awareness and organisations! OMG - Kate is a MUM of young children and she did the Five Under Five Project!

Oh, the horror of it all! Personal experience with a cause makes them UNFIT to support it who cares if they can actually relate to what they support and can therefore speak about it to the public and prospective donors with a glimmer of sincerity?????!

Oh, wait . . .

I wouldn't compare it to a boring desk job or fixing sewers or driving lorries . . . but then they wouldn't have the glamour that the work of patronage requires if it's to attract funding from the public as well as major donors.

Patronage is the job all the surviving monarchies in Europe invented for themselves to step back from that cliff edge they were all about to fall off.

Look up the patronage list for Crown Princess Mary of Denmark, who also opened a charity foundation in her name.

Everyone thinks it's just heinous that the privileged try to survive and keep their patronages.

The critics, of course, in the same position, would grandly renounce it all and head for Buddhist monasteries.

[quote] you said majority. Prove it. Cherry picking quotes doesn’t count. There are thousands of posters on here (well, hundreds). A handful of quotes means nothing.

I included TWO threads with over 200 responses.

A glance at the patronages of Crown Princess Mary of Denmark:

"Since 2004, Mary has steadily worked to establish her relationships with various organisations, their issues, missions, programmes and staff. Her patronages range across areas of culture, the fashion industry, humanitarian aid, support for research and science, social and health patronages and sport. The organisations for which she is patron have reported positive outcomes through their relationship with her and there are various reports in the Danish media and on some of the websites of the organisations themselves about her being quite involved in her working relationship with them. She is currently involved in supporting anti-obesity programs through the World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe."

Mary is nearly ten years older than Kate, has four children ages 16, 14, and 11 year old twins. She has an expensive and snazzy wardrobe (most of the time, sometimes she blows it), and with the family occupies a large and expensively renovated domicile in central Copenhagen's Frederick VIII Palace.

Gosh, this all sounds so familiar . . .!

Mary of Denmark even looks like she could be Kate Cambridge's older sister.

Mary gets to wear what many Dataloungers have agreed is the single coolest tiara in the world, the Midnight Tiara (sporting diamonds and moonstones, and made of rose gold, white gold, and oxidized silver).

The idea of kings and dukes and all that shit is so inherently ludicrous that it carries endless entertainment value.

It would be like going to a witch doctor for your bursitis.

R190, no you didn’t. You cherry picked some responses from a few threads.

I never got the hate for Camilla. Ugly Charles wants her ugly ass, and they are still together, they belong to each other. Pretty and borderline Diana was forced on him like an arranged marriage. Diana doesnt even want Charles, she was a little kid who just wanted to be a princess then. Shit happens. Everybody got an out and everybody deserves to find their own happiness after being thrown into an impossible situation. Except Diana is a nutter who is incapable of happiness, coz of the crazy. Although thankfully, for the sake of humanity, C and C didnt procreate.

Come on down here, Camiller, and getcho diamond studded dog collar!

Camilla cheated on her husband with another woman's husband for years and you "never got the hate?" I'm not even a Camilla hater but I get it.

Lots of wrong information and speculation upfhread. Cleaned up, as a result of her marriage, taking status from her husband, Diana became HRH The Princess of Wales. Technically she was Princess Charles, too, and Duchess of Cornwall. Each was not a title, only a form of identification, assuming titles of her husband. Only a style. Diana was not made a princess of England. Upon divorce, Charles had no present wife, so, there was no Princess of Wales. After her divorce, as is the English way, the ex-wife of a title is styled as name, title for identification only, thus, Diana, Princess of Wales. Margaret, Duchess of Argyll (now here’s juicy bits, look into it). Technically again, Camilla is an HRH Princess Charles, HRH The Princess of Wales, the Duchess of Cprnwall, etc., all from Charles. Throughout ther marriage she has not set one foot wrong. Just watch. She will become Queen when Charles is King. The reign of Charles will be short, but he will be a good King.

R197 please, super frau, go back to your fairy tales where all marriages last and everybody lives happily ever after

R197. Do you also hate Diana for the sane reason?

[quote]Camilla cheated on her husband with another woman's husband for years and you "never got the hate?" I'm not even a Camilla hater but I get it.

Did you ever get the part that Andrew Parker Bowled was an inveterate cheat with multiple partners during his marriage? Does this matter at all? Or is it just when the females step out?

Speaking of females stepping out, do you know how Will Carling and Oliver Hoare's ex-wives felt about Diana being the third party in their marriages? Or how they felt about getting hundreds of hang up calls that originated from Kensington Palace?

How come no one hates Diana for breaking up marriages? She was too pretty to be responsible?

R201 Nailed it, my son.

[quote][R197]. Do you also hate Diana for the sane reason?

Calm down. Did you miss where I said I'm not a Camilla hater? I just think it's ridiculous to say "I don't get the hate" when none of these people are saints.

"No one hates Diana?"

Seriously?

You can be sure that any poster who accuses another poster of being a frau is a frau.

The only good thing here is that Elizabeth has had a long reign and may it continue for a few more years. The longer her reign, the shorter Charles's will be and thus being subjected the sight of the Duchess of Horsewall. Of course, we can always hope for ultimate favor for us all, her dying before the Queen.

wow, you’re right Catherine and Mary do have a resemblance to each other. Except Mary is a little more adventurous with her hair, and has already started cutting and layering it somewhat.

Camilla has just been handed the National Theatre Patronage. The plum patronage the Queen gave to her ungrateful granddaughter-in-law once upon a time.

In his public functions I prefer Charles to William. He’s more remote and old school. He also is much cultured than William. Charles’ main faults are his meddling in politics and his inability to handle some of the family’s internal affairs.

Camilla getting the NT patronage is a signal of sorts. I'm surprised the DM isn't making more of it.

For one, it's something in the nature of a public apology to Camilla. Second, it's a rare acknowledgement that HM made a mistake. It was a mistake giving such a plum to someone who'd done ten minutes instead of ten+ years of work for the monarchy, and someone whom TQ also knew was already off the rails. Third, it's a poke in the eye to Meghan on both the foregoing counts.

And, lastly, it's a sign that, no, the Sussexes aren't, ever, houng to return to the UK as working royals. The handing off of the high profile patronages has begun. The Sussexes won't return under any other circumstances except those they enjoyed before they flounced out.

Either William or Anne will get Captain General of the Marines, and Charles or William will take over the Grenadier Guards from Andrew.

Camilla, for all intents and purposes, is Britain's future Queen. For the NT, only Charles or the Queen would be more prestigious.

Charles may want to be able to bring the Sussexes back for visits and to edge them into some visibility for the Platinum Jubilee (and his mother's funeral), but they aren't ever returning in any official capacity.

This gesture may as well be signed, "Well, We left the doors open until you two brats made it clear you were never going to be anything but ungrateful pains in the arse, so, Fuck You both, have nice lives in LaCa." HM QEII

Enjoyed your post, r210.

Pure speculation, but after reading your post, it occurred to me that maybe Q E II realized the risk of handing NTP to Markle, but, took that risk on the hope that it would satisfy them, which, by the way, it should have.

Assuming I outlive TQ and am around to see her funeral, I have to believe that both Sussexes will be there. They simply cannot pass up the exposure. They need it. They know that. And if Markle has any illusions that she'll try to pull a "more conspicuous by her absence" act, she better think again.

It is two years since the Sussexes "flounced out," as one of you so descriptively noted. I agree with you that there seems to be no turning back. They've burnt their bridges by their repeated actions. I think the next thing we will see is a new Bill brought to Parliament changing the Counsellors of State requirements. They very much need to find a way to exclude Harry (easy, because he doesn't live in the UK) and Andrew (more difficult, because he hasn't been found guilty of anything by a court of law). Perhaps what would be useful would be a formula that allows the monarch to assign Counsellors of State. That would allow the sensible inclusion of Anne, who is 17th in line to the throne, and/or Edward, who is 14th. But a trickier business is the Succession. How do you alter the succession to exclude Harry and Andrew, and what kind of precedent does that set, deviating from the hereditary principle and the Crown becoming a sort of popularity contest.

I cannot imagine them playing with the line of succession. That's opening up the door to the whole question of the hereditary principle and the whole ball of wax. It is nearly impossible Harry would inherit - think what it would take - and impossible that Andrew will.

If events somehow evolved that you faced the prospect of a King Harry then you're at a stage where abolition of the monarchy might well be viable. Parliament is supreme. It could act in any way it wanted to in the event of the extraordinary. And remember, now, Parliament is populated by people with much less at stake in terms of the crown. The last genuine crisis was the abdication. It was another world then, where the aristocracy was still deeply entangled with the crown and politics, the church had relevance and there were moral imperatives that still carried force.

It is a different world now. If it got to Harry on the throne it would be a much more surgical process to consider the way forward.

Yes, R213, I think you are right. (I'm R212 .) I think no actions would be taken unless something happened to the Cambridge family. That explains why Queen Elizabeth doesn't want William and his children flying in helicopters together.

More power to Harry and Meghan, FUCK Charles, William and most of all, the vile, monstrosity that is Camilla!!

I agree that they'll revisit the rules for Counsellors of State soon but will leave the succession alone. Basically, what they need to do is ensure that nobody gets any ancillary honors just because they are far up the line of succession (except, of course, for the throne itself).

Being a working royal is an honor, not an automatic right. If the spares can't behave themselves or won't do the work, it should be arranged that they can easily be passed over for a sibling or a cousin who is more suitable. That's what's happening anyway; they just need to loosen the rules a bit--as with the Counsellors positions--to make it more or less official.

I think these moves are being made for a couple of reasons. One, Harry's autobio is due out this year, and God knows what he's going to say. Two, the Sussexes may in fact be floating the idea of coming back into the fold, working on the weak link in this situation, Harry's father. They know the Queen won't be with us much longer, and once it's King Charles on the throne, they'd be entitled to more perks. (This was always true, but they were too blinkered to see it before now, apparently.)

Would Harry publish an inflammatory autobiography and still expect to get perks? Is he really that entitled and stupid? Probably.

Other elements in the BRF are not that dumb, though, and they are moving the chess pieces so that the Sussexes can't ooze their way back in because Charles has a blind spot about his youngest son. It's probably William working in concert with the Grey Men--Harry really has burned his bridges with his older brother whether he realizes it or not.

[quote]Would Harry publish an inflammatory autobiography and still expect to get perks? Is he really that entitled and stupid? Probably.

Hard yes, here.

York girls troll, where are you?

The awarding of the National Theatre patronage to MM was smart. It is such a prestigious organization and offers many high profile, glamorous photo opps with the top tier of the UK acting world. MM couldn’t possibly claim she was unwelcome after that. Could she? Yup, she did. Idiot.

I was surprisingly sad (Mary!) when Diana died.

In retrospect, Charles & Diana should never have married. He was early 30s and she was 19 or 20. He was the heir and was being pressured, I'm sure, to marry somebody and have sons.

Charles was never in love with Diana.

Camilla, over the years, has proven herself and not been an embarrassment, ever.

William and Harry have no apparent complaints about her.

Camilla looked really good at her wedding to Charles. Big Liz is wearing off-white. I guess that's not a faux pas in the UK.

Camilla getting this high-profile patronage, the certainty that Anne or William will get Andrew's military roles, even the rumor that the Cambridges will be given Fort Belvedere at Windsor: It's clear that power and wealth are fast being transferred to Charles, William, and those they favor.

Harry and Meghan should have been patient: The children of the monarch always get a big share of the goodies. After what they've done, though, all they're going to get is two fingers up.

Diana also had something of the equine about her... more coltish than naggish like Camilla - Charles definitely has a type. But that being said, in hindsight she was batshit crazy. Camilla's kept herself out of the spotlight for years while her image has been rehabilitated. And I have to think that if Charles has been happy with her for so long, she's got to have a fairly nice personality.

Or he could just be leaning into the horse fetish.

Zemen-Wambuis = ancient Klan Granny

Surviving Angel = believes everyone is gay including Taylor Swift

'And I have to think that if Charles has been happy with her for so long, she's got to have a fairly nice personality.'

Camillal is old school and is fine with him cheating. She's his comfort goat so it doesn't matter what she looks like. He gets sex elsewhere with blondes in their 30s and 40s.

You seem remarkably well-informed, R226! How do you know this?

And the KGT is back! Hi there crazy!

Camilla is a homewrecker. Never forget.

So was Diana. Never forget.

When Charles becomes king, Camilla will be Princess Consort as she, Charles and the royal family stated prior to her marriage to Charles, the other half of the homewrecking dastardly duo.

To be fair, had her marriage not been invaded r230 Diana could have remained married and not needed to seek out others.

Look, I'm not saying that Charles did right by Diana: He didn't. But she wasn't a saint, either. She was a naive, emotionally unstable girl who great into a bitter, vindictive woman with a talent for manipulating the press. This desperate need for external validation and constant attention led directly to her death.

*grew into a

R232. Diana sought married men. Nobody forced her to do that. She’s exactly equivalent to Camilla in that respect, but one Diana is a saint and Camilla isn’t for reasons unknown.

You could also make the point that had Andrew Parker-Bowles not made it his personal mission to fuck every aristocratic woman in Great Britain, Camilla would not have looked for solace outside her marriage. Had Diana not proven herself to be spoiled and unstable in the early days of her marriage, Charles might not have gone back to Camilla (he's always maintained that he and Camilla were platonic friends for the first five years of her marriage). These were all adult people who made bad choices. However, had Diana lived into middle-age, she might have negotiated some kind of truce with Charles. Camilla and Andrew are now friendly.

I think you are going too far. She did not need "constant attention" it was there every time she walkout her door. Your judgement seems quite clouded by your hatred for her. R233

I don't hate Diana: Don't put words in my mouth. But it's no speculation that Diana courted the attention of the press and manipulated it to serve her own needs. She was already white-hot famous, but she fanned the flames with stunts like the Panorama interview. She sought mass love because her husband didn't love her. Well, in private she didn't sound very lovable, always crying and vomiting and going sullen when she didn't get her way. She was a beautiful woman and not without empathy and talent, but she was also a spoiled little bitch.

Dear God,

Is that what the British Royals have become...

[QUOTE] Diana sought married men. Nobody forced her to do that. She’s exactly equivalent to Camilla in that respect, but one Diana is a saint and Camilla isn’t for reasons unknown.

Diana had affairs with unhappily married men who had been married for decades. Camilla the Cunt had an affair with Charles before his marriage to 19 year old virgin, right after the honeymoon and relentlessly until the marriage ended. She taught teenage Diana to be cynical.

Hilarious that the Klanners are trying to recast fuckboy Charles as a devoted husband to an old goat. Camilla wasn't the only woman he had an affair with in the Diana years and she definitely wasn't the last. Charles is an adulterer to the end, like his father and the whole line of sleazy English monarchs going back to Henry VIII.

Spoiled infers someone spoiled her. Who exactly was that?

Read Tina Brown's biography of Diana for a very good explanation of how her childhood created the neurotic adult she became.

William has become a pompous bore just like Charles. Thank God, Harry takes after Diana.

Yes, you hate her r238. The words you use to describe her give you away.

R244 Sure sure sure. That's why Harry and Meghan can't even beat the boring Cambridgre on American polls, let alone British ones.

And you can see where Diana's marvellous nature got her: dead at 37 in the arms of a sleazy playboy and unable to sustain a dance relationship with a man.

Harry takes after Diana, all right. A victim playing angry shit who made all her mistakes and is paying for them the same way.

Married the female equivalent of Dodi Fayed: a grifter looking for an easy mark before she turned into a faded d-list actress hungry for fame, wealth, and cheap celebrity.

Except that she was beautiful and charming.

And he isn't.

He's ugly, petulant, entitled, and enraged.

And Diana favoured William - who looks like her.

Yeah, thank God Harry took after Diana, God help him.

^*sustain a decent (not dance) relationship with a man

Fucking autocorrect.

Diana was many, many complicated things, many of those unattractive, but she was at least a product, if you can't accept victim, of circumstance. You can't fairly blame anyone for not being successful in their relationships with others after being thrown by the divorce of parents, raised without a constant affection figure or mentor, naively entering a true power marriage with idealistic, unrealistic expectations and then experiencing literal adulation from everyone except the man you married and the people you worked for. She did a lot of rotten, repellent things - dragging her children into her woes, trying to game the press, nuisance calling men and women, most of which can be explained by circumstance and her own neediness. Her emotional weakness was a flaw, though, not a failing, which is in turn an explanation, not an excuse. The one time I thought she really nailed it was when she said "the best way to dismantle a personality is to isolate it." Diana's situation went from bad to worse and so did Diana. She never had the coping skills to cope with the weird world of her marriage and separation.

I argue too that Diana came in at point when the Victorian/Edwardian monarchy was dying, although it probably didn't know it. Even in 1980 they still thought (and went inspecting) the Princess of Wales needed to be a virgin and that if her husband wanted a mistress you just put up with that. The whole institution was living too far in its past. Diana, in the things she did that worked for the institution, helped create the monarchy that is today. If Charles had been allowed to marry Camilla, who may be pleasant and fun in private but let's be honest is nothing to look at (and was less in her original recipe version), the result would have been more Victorian/Edwardian monarchy, peopled by the ugliest heirs you can imagine, really out of touch with the world around them. Outcome unknown but it doesn't look good on paper.

There's no one simple answer to how the epic mess of Charles and Diana happened and unfolded. There's plenty of responsibility to go around and that includes Diana herself. But I for one have always felt the [italic]scorn/italic] thrown at her - dim, manipulative, mad - was unfair to a naive young woman who was wrong for the circumstances and then, captured but not tamed, lashed out for a range of understandable if not excusable reasons. I always think Diana (and Charles) should be seen, not judged. They were both humanly selfish rather than purposely bad.

Beautiful and charming aren't words that anyone with eyes would us to describe Meghan. She couldn't be farther from that if she tried.

This says it all!

The Queen is working at getting all her ducks in a row. She is bringing William and Kate closer to her. She is giving even more Royal status to Camilla and Kate. She is saying nice things about Charles. She is praising William. I'm sure there's more to come.

She wants the monarchy to continue after she passes. She's doing all she can to add even more Royal authenticity to those four people.

We will see.

Look at the royal stans catfight…Duke-ing it out, no less.

R250 Spitting Image has done everyone. And everyone they do looks like that.

R249 - My bad. I meant that Diana had been beautiful and charming, and that was where Harry didn't take after her, and that's why he isn't getting away with what she got away with. I agree with you: beautiful and charming are not words I used to describe Meghan.

One of the rules: if you start new paragraphs or sentences, use proper names in the opening or the pronoun hangs on the last such person mentioned.

R246

R244 - Yeah, thank God Harry takes after Diana.

R240. That footballer she was with seemed pretty young, but I guess he had been married for decades. I also wasn’t aware Charles’ and Diana’s marriage was blissful until Charles got back with Camilla. Nonetheless, being the saint she was, I’m sure Diana did all the necessary due diligence and obtained all the necessary approvals, to make her many adulterous wholesome and had a credit to the nation, unlike Camilla’s adultery with Charles.

Didn't Will Carling's wife want to name Diana in her divorce filing but had to be paid off or convinced not? I vaguely remember something along these lines.

Finally, someone whose face makes mine look appealing by comparison!

R255 What's ironic is that if Meghan had remained a working royal and kept her mouth shut, it's likely she would have been more popular than Kate or at least seen as more interesting. But Meghan and Harry, as they have a propensity of doing, hit the nuclear button and did that Oprah interview which divided opinion and made them controversial.

The war made King George VI and Queen Elizabeth very, very popular. Meghan and Harry were no second world war, but their self-interest and inability to actually accomplish much, against the backdrop of the pandemic, propelled Kate and William even further than their own contrast would have normally taken them.

R234

Yes but her sisters had the same upbringing and they weren't at all like Diana.

She clearly had a personality disorder.

I think she and Charles are horrible people but don’t wish them any harm.

^ meant for R243

It's true, Meghan was the best thing to ever happen to Kate. She was able to give herself an identity by defining herself in opposition to Meghan's antics, and it's played a big role in her rapid development into the beloved figure she is now. She seems stately, charitable, and graceful compared to Meghan, and that's an image she'll carry into Princess of Wales and Queen.

Does Meghan realize this? If so, it must drive her absolutely nuts.

R170 Whenever I think of Fort Belvedere, it brings to mind the ghost of Edward VIII doing needlepoint and gazing adoringly at Wallis.

R170 Yes! Although I suppose it could be rebranded if the Cambridges make the move. Since it’s been leased to the very wealthy Weston family, it may not require as much work to be made ready for them.

Queen of the fart

[quote]I think no actions would be taken unless something happened to the Cambridge family. That explains why Queen Elizabeth doesn't want William and his children flying in helicopters together.

Sure it is.

R262 - Odd, I think Diana, Fergie, Harry, and Meghan are/were horrible people, and Diana's last boyfriend pretty much puts them all in the shade. It doesn't get much sleazier than Dodi Fayed. Charles and Camilla stuck together. What does it say about Diana that she was willing to spend the summer fucking Dod Fayed so she could be photographed on a yacht and flown around the Riviera?

What do those 200 calls in a couple of days to Oliver Hoare say about Diana?

What does what she did to Tiggy Legg-Bourke say about Diana (that was another public apology Diana's lawyers had to make on her behalf)?

Diana was a conniving, manipulative, shallow, demanding bitch. That's why her marriage ended - not because of Camilla.

R269 You are right on the money. Diana was a fame thirsty conniving , nasty piece of work hiding behind her doe eyes and poor me victimhood. She was a FAKE.

When she's Queen and I'm Queen in the next round of Trump, she and I will have so much lady talk to share.

Kate has been given 2 of Harry's former roles.

The rugby patronage must be especially hard for Harry the Lad.

The Queen couldn't signal any more clearly that the Sussexes are permanently out. The icing on the cake will be when she hands over Fort Belvedere at Windsor to the Cambridges.

R274 - Yes, I think the invisible handwriting on the wall has suddenly become visible. With the plum patronages now being reassigned, it's clear the Queen has accepted that the Sussexes are no longer viable as public faces of the BRF ever again, and that she considers the door permanently closed. When William gets the CG of the Royal Marines, Harry's fury will probably put paid to private family visits. After all, with Camilla getting Meghan's top patronage and William taking Harry's military plum, both stemming from dear old Gran, why would he want to visit any of them? And bring Meghan with him?! Both of them filled with burning resentment and petulant victimhood?

I wonder if Harry knew these were about to handed out and to whom, and filed that suit about his security so that when it was denied, he could use it, rather than his rage and envy, as an excuse not to show up to anything.

Go Kate! I think this was a good choice and a fun rivalry for her and Will. She looks great playing rugby with the team.

That she was hoisted up, albeit by females in critical, concerning areas and the other trainers means a lot! There appears to be some kind of mutual something going on.

She didn't appear concerned, but fortunately ...

She was participating in a line out - standard rugby manoeuvre. What’s the problem?

All those butch hands are a little too close to the future Queen's clunge for comfort.

Hand placement for the line out lifts are just under the buttocks at the back and above the knees at the front. Exactly as shown in the photo except Kate would have her own hands stretched up into the air rather than looking slightly terrified with hands in front of her.

All hands were respectful and she really seemed to enjoy herself as a sporting sort.

Rugby is far more upper middle-class than even William's Aston Villa.

It's strange that the sport has more middle-class, and even upper-middle class players in European countries, but the UK's weird version in that respect, soccer stars seem to come from the lowliest families and their players seem to have no other outlook beyond being trashy with their closest relations.

It would have been scandalous if Zara had married a footballer instead of a Rugby player. It would have been NOKD territory. Soccer = Lower Classes. Rugby, or better yet Cricket = Acceptable, depending on your ability to not be loud-mouthed or boorish.

The UK's professional players seem to be dominated by the trashiest sorts. Ryan Highs, Ronaldo, cunts them all.

Without any middle class pretentions about being "civilized," and not understanding why property doesn't continuously put them in upheaval, I keep wondering why this continuous trash keeps occurring...

*Ryan GIGGS, not "Highs".

Why do folks think he's cleaner than milk? He keeps fooling old people who keep loving him.

r281.Rugby Union is "the posh boys" rugby. Payments to working class players is how Rugby League came about. ( Notice H turned up twice as RL patron , so hopefully K bothers to learn the rules.) Link if you are interested.

[quote]the RFU’s president, presented Kate with referee whistles for George, Charlotte and Louis.

Finally, a useful present! Keeping them all in line should be a lot easier now.

And there was Kate out yesterday on a joint outing with Charles and Camilla (the three Cs, as Kate is the future Queen Catherine, not Katherine), looking cheerfully adorable in a this time shortish flared perfectly fitted tweed coat dress, showing off her hair, waist, and legs.

You'd have to be blind not to read the messages.

Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the best loved and dutiful princess and daughter-in-law of all?

[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.]

Kate wears the gray Catherine Walker short coat dress when she is really trying not to stand out. She wore this same dress when she had a solo outing with the Queen shortly after you know who arrived.

And now, the final mark of approval by the Queen:

The Rottweiler certainly is the face of the future of the British Monarchy.

And to pile Pelion on Ossa, it appears that the Queen has agreed that when crowned along with Charles, Camilla WILL get to wear the Queen Mother's coronation Consort crown, with the Koh-i-Noor diamond in it.

Sic transit gloria.

Enjoy it while it lasts, kids. This is going to be so unpopular with the public as to represent a gift to the republican movement that it could only have hoped for in its dreams.

Rot. Unless Charles goes rogue in the job, everyone will just pull their heads in and wait for the Cambridge Show, which, failing tragedy, is clearly going to be a long-running hit.

R1, It's called "sunlight's effect after 70 years" [See: Bardot, Brigitte]. Plus some faces are simpky more prone to wrinkling [See: Women, Kennedy].

Camilla is still no Mick or Keef!

R21, Yes, she has. Camilla, as do many women, wears her hair the way her husband likes it. The style suits her, the color suits her, and the tiaras sit well upon it.

R291, I'll be long moulderin' in my grave, but five bucks says that 50 years from now people will be griping, "When will it be GEORGE'S turn? William should step DOWN!"

Meh, it'll be fine. So long as they don't smell, drool or need care, old people generally inspire a kind of affection - particularly when they're spry. When she dies, there will be a prevailing sentiment among those so inclined: it's nice he's had his turn after all these years. Edward VII was a well thought of king, following the eternal mother of Queen Victoria. It's hard to imagine, knowing he's next, that getting his turn will shock and infuriate people to the extent they turn their backs on it, esp. as noted above with the Cambridges visibly in the wings. There was still considerable affection even for the Duke of Windsor after everything. The establishment exiled him more than the people did. Generally monarchies fall for prideful excess when they are out of touch.

It’s fine for Queen Elizabeth to state her wishes now, but once Charles is king he can do as he wishes. Edward VII started tearing down busts and portraits of Prince Albert once Queen Victoria died. If Charles wants Camilla to wear The Queen Mother’s jewels, the current Queen Elizabeth won’t be around to say no once he succeeds.

Crowns pass from person to person... the Queen Mother's crown was made up of stones from crowns worn by Queens Victoria, Alexandra and Mary. That's just the way it works. I'd guess nobody's thinking about it inside the gates.

Ok, but she's still ugly.

R296 - It should be remembered that Camilla's engagement ring, and enormous emerald-cut diamond in platinum, was ALSO the Queen Mother's personal jewellery.

When he proposed to Diana, he had a tray of brings brought in from Garrard's (or was it Collingwood?) so she could pick her own - exciting for a 19 year old, certainly, but hardly the most romantic gesture. The Queen was present, I believe, and her eyes popped when Diana gleefully went for the biggest one on the tray. And the rest, as they say, is history.

The handwriting was on the wall early on.

R298 - "If you want to be happy for the rest of your life, make an ugly woman your wife."

And she's probably ten times better in the sack than Diana was.

Let us count the days of the week when good in the sack trumps good-looking . . .

I'd take this over that sapphire and diamond cocktail ring any day.

Camilla has routinely been wearing jewels the Queen Mother wore, some that were wedding presents to Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon when she was just marrying the spare, the Duke of York, the future King George VI.

[quote]Ok, but she's still ugly.

That's what I think whenever someone posts 'they should have been allowed to marry when they were young'. Well, yes, under the Geneva Convention, but, my God, imagine what the kids would look like?!? Talk about the death of the monarchy.

R298 and R302 - Camilla is not ugly, nor was she ever ugly. She's just wrinkled from too much sun, too many cigarettes, etc. It's what the vast bulk of women would look like without plastic surgery, Botox, etc.

She was a great-looking lass.

Charles may let Archie and Lili have the HRH prince/princess thing just to avoid the whining in the media, but it's rather sad that two Californians who will never live in the UK or do a day of service for it will have those titles. Bad enough that Bea and Eug have them, but at least they are UK residents.

You never know how genes will mix. The Queen and Philip were both nice-looking, and two of their kids were very handsome young men. The two oldest, especially Charles, have always looked a bit odd. William was a gorgeous teenager but hit the wall at 25, and Harry was never more than cute and lost that by the time he was 30.

For all we know, Camilla and Charles could have had great-looking kids.

But we might as well expect they wouldn't. Camilla's husband was no looker and their children aren't exactly oil paintings.

R304, What are you on about? You posit a highly unlikely event, then bemoan it. Charles will not grant royal titles to children whose parents exiled themselves. There will be no HRH Archie. And even Charles might have been offended by the use of "Lilibet."

But even if he simply adores those two grandkids, Charles is intent not on expanding the royal circle but in reducing it.

Charles isn't going to 'grant' those titles, R307. Unless he says otherwise, Archie and Lili automatically become HRH Prince/Princess as soon as their grandfather takes the throne. He's going to have to publicly change the rules if he wants to keep that from happening.

R300 Maybe, but he is still gonna cheat if she's ugly.

And that logic doesn't even register in the gay world. The gays will look at you like: "What? No honey, I'll take the hunk please. Thank you."

R303 Wow! How far up the BRF's ass do you have to be to say CPB is not ugly?

Get your eyes checked sweetie because every time I look at her I expect her to say WOOF!

[quote]He's going to have to publicly change the rules if he wants to keep that from happening.

Sounds like a job for mummy.

R306, Camilla's children are on the average scale of attractiveness. No, they aren't head turners, but they are not unattractive either. They both look like completely normal attractive people.

Camilla's daughter reminds me of Zara Tindall.

On what planet are those two dogs unattractive? Solid threes and that's after a day of hard drinking and a few years in prison.

You don't have to have your nose up the BRF's arse to see a plain but warm and pleasant mid-seventies woman when you look at Camilla.

She was a decent looking young woman, nothing to write home about, but she was hardly Flora Robson or to get more modern, that poster girl for hard horse faces, Sarah Jessica Parker. Shelley Duvall? Bette Davis? Bette Midler? Kathy Griffin?

She's fucking 74 years old. Six years from 80. She was a decent looking young woman with a trim figure and an earthy sexuality that Diana never had. Now Camilla is a homely old woman. Her husband was a geek in his youth, and now he's a homely old man. How come people aren't ragging on HIM for his appearance?!

Why is it a crime for Camilla to be a homely yet much loved wife, but not a crime for Charles to look like an Edwardian dwarf with huge ears? Those double-breasted suits make him look like Dr Watson.

Camilla’s children look like reasonably attractive, rather confident upper class English people, which is exactly what they are.

Confidence is very attractive.

[quote]And to pile Pelion on Ossa

R290 just reminded me, instead of this Noel Coward used to say " To pile Pelleas on Melisande".

Prince Charles has covid again. Such a weak immune system doesn't promise a long life. He'll be dead at 75 with any luck and Horse Teeth the Bald can be king.

Lots of people get Covid more than once, r318, much younger people who are fully vaxxed and boosted too. Charles meets dozens of people every day, it's not particularly surprising that he's caught it again.

Yikes.. it's true. It's things like this worry me about the Queen's health and safety.

Charles has COVID again.

R315 Cut the revisionist history crap! She was a wrinkled up hag when Charles left the beautiful Dianna Spencer for her. She has ALWAYS been homely as hell! All the makeup in the world can't hide that. If he wanted that trash he shoulda married her in the first place.

And nobody said Charles was attractive. That big earred bigot looks way worse than her! Charles is the ugliest in the entire BRF [which is saying a lot considering that horse faced Princess Anne - she really shoulda had a nose job]. Charles certainly is worse and both of them are hideous as a result of centuries of inbreeding. Something disgusting looking was bound to pop up at some point! Edward and Andrew were the only ones fuckable.

Camilla has never been attractive. Her kids are meh.

Be honest, CPB has never been a looker.

CPB has a cute daughter. The son is very "meh." But I guess he looks like the average Brit - especially in the mouth!

CPB was lithe, tall, and sexy in her youth. Yes, not classical good looks, but a wit and a sexy one at that.

I don’t think Fort Belvedere is an 11th century castle or fortification. It was built as an architectural folly in late 19th century and renovated by Edward VIII as a weekend home when he was Prince of Wales.

You’re really rather stupid, aren’t you, R322?

R328 You really are quite sensitive aren't you? Honey this is DL! If you can't stand truth then stick to Fox news and Facebook. Your propaganda news network and your echo chamber of "friends" will happily fill your empty head with lies.

I wouldn't call her daughter cute.

Camilla was, is and always will be a homely bitch. Don’t give this adulterous slag a pass because she may get a crown on her head one day…

Charles has something in common with Paul McCartney: Both married not-beautiful divorced mothers with big busts, each woman's becoming each man's Love of His Life.

The heart may want what it wants, but the subconscious needs what it needs.

Meanwhile during all this activity, Harry and his fat wife fade further and further into the background

The further you get from the Crown, the less important you are. It's amazing that Harry and Meghan didn't get that two years ago. But then, Harry never seemed to understand that all of his position and status was entirely derived from his grandmother and father and, one day, his brother. He'd have been wise to keep all of them on-side.

R334, not to mention the money he might (or might not) inherit in his grandmother's and father's wills. Harry and his wife didn't pay attention to the long game, I'm afraid. How long until they are no longer getting big contracts? They won't be young forever and, alas, between them they have few marketable skills.

They're not really young now.

Charles is wracked with guilt for how his adultery and tampon talk damaged his sons. Once he is King, he will welcome Henry back and give him whatever he wants. Maybe gift Henry Clarence House. You are a fool to think otherwise.

^ Do you have a dealer or it is legal in your state too?

R337 = Omid Scobie

Is Scobie gay?

R340 I assume so. His twitter flames and I can't imagine a hetero man simping for Meghan or doing all that to his face

R236 I thought it was the John Brown statues he had torn down. Albert too? I know Edward VII wasted no time in clearing out the royal palaces of all QV’s clutter and he donated Osborne House to the nation which QV would have hated.

It’s beyond funny to me that the Royals have their own special private Orders and their own honorary military titles. Even Edward, who pussed out of basic training for the Marines.

They don't get big contracts now r335. They never did. That was always their PR.

Tina Brown, who knew Diana personally, speculated in her bio that if Diana had lived a little longer, she and Charles would have worked out a truce. Towards the end, even Diana admitted that Camilla truly made Charles happy. If she had been able to find a happy marriage of her own, I can see fortysomething Diana being gracious to her ex-husband. Of course, a living Diana would have made the question of Camilla's eventual status a bit trickier, but I'm sure they could have settled it one way or another. Perhaps Diana would have accepted giving up Princess of Wales in exchange for being HRH Princess Diana in her own right, as the Queen originally offered.

There should be an "Order of the Jockstrap".

R346 - what would one have to do to deserve it?

R345 Assuming Diana had lived, it would have been very sad if after 25 years she had not moved on with her life. She would likely have remarried and Charles might have waited until she did so to marry Camilla, but marrying Camilla was always on the cards.

What happened to them? Harry made the appearance for Better Up, but that was a contractual obligation. There haven’t been any open letters or pointless public appearances. Have they finally realised no one wants them?

Harry spoke out today for HIV day and told everyone to get tested. He also mentioned Diana's work. I don't feel like linking, but it's in the DM today.

Harry told everyone to get tested for HIV when labs around the world are besieged by Covid tests? Really? What a thoughtful, well-read do-gooder. NOT.

Recently, Rite-Aid pharmacies (which operate in his California) had to curtail evening hours because they were short-staffed and had to process a deluge of Covid tests.

I asked my Prof today, he had not heard of this nor had my head of pathology. So it is some invention by the Terence Higgins trust but they don't bother to inform the NHS .

The Queen can't put a foot wrong. Harry and Meghan can't put a foot right.

The Queen cannot put a foot wrong. Harry and Meghan can't seem to put a foot right.

I think her face is great...

I think a living Diana would have made Queen Camilla almost impossible. The whole thing would have taken a much different trajectory. Camilla would have existed privately but not been part of the show. Unless Diana fell so far out of favour. But the narrative was set, rightly or wrongly, Camilla's existence was the major reason the fairy tale collapsed. So for Charles to bring her forward.... they still didn't feel able to call her Princess of Wales after marriage. A living Diana would in most scenarios have been a huge roadblock.

^^^^ YES! I agree with R356. There is a large segment of the UK that not only still think fondly of Diana but they also related to her. From the shy girl being thrust into the spot light to the bulimia, to the hounding by photographers that lead to her death, she is almost a martyr. Had Diana lived, Camilla would have needed to fade into the woodwork. She would have been Charles "wife" and nothing more.

Commendable and sad of QE2 so clearly thinking of preparing for her own death. Then again, she might well be ready at this point.

I don't know about still has fondness all these years later but for certain at the time that Camilla as an official part of Charles life was introduced - in 1999, two years after her death. Feeling has always been far more sympathetic toward Diana than Charles. It would have been tricky that soon after the divorce and - irritating? - for Charles still to be scheming to give Camilla some respectability twenty years later. A living Diana would always be a reminder of what might have been, didn't happen, and how it failed. A dead Diana made it possible. It's no one's sole failing. They all fucked up in different ways.

r356 And what is the ultimate disposition of a roadblock? It is removed.

R358 The Queen is deeply religious and highly pragmatic. I doubt she fears death.

It's impossible to know but given the way Diana was flailing in her last months, I think she'd have lost some public support over time. She had terrible luck with men and I can't imagine she would've been graceful about the aging process.

And by the accounts of her own friends, she and Charles were co-parenting effectively at the end. They were at peace.

I wonder what would have become of her relationship with William? He'd become increasingly upset with her over her Panorama interview and later when she was hanging out on a yacht with Fayed. I read on a DL post that he hung up on her in their last conversation. I suspect it would have frayed as William came to realize that his mother was troubled and learn some of her history (e.g. throwing herself dow stairs while pregnant) if he hadn't already

I bet if Diana lived she would have liked Meghan. Harry and Meghan really look good together. They seem happy in America.

I wonder if William still would have ended up with Kate if his mother had lived? I get the feeling that Diana, so proud of her aristocratic heritage, wouldn't have been thrilled about William marrying a middle-class girl. Of course, if their relationship had remained strained, William might not have cared what she thought.

There is no general brf thread so just leaving this here. It's snowballing on Twitter with journalists involved so not a conspiracy. The alleged main anti Sussex troll and alleged prolific brf spammer is the son of a retired Scotland yard commander. Both Father and son now work for the National trust. It's unbelievable. Go to @christopher bouzy.

You’ve got me scared now, R366! I’m clearing my cache and deleting my cookies then hiding under the bed!

Are the FBI/Interpol/MI5 making lists and checking them twice r366? Everyone who dislikes Harry is about to be arrested! I am shitting myself.

The goose flies at night!

She would have seen that grifter coming a mile away r364. They are evenly matched in their homliness though. Happy people don't behave like those two have since Megxit.

You Diana fanatic bitches would have been institutionalized if Diana was still alive and you’d have to repeatedly watch her deep curtsy’s to Camilla.

R370 The Grifters are Kate and Fergie. I'm pretty sure she would have objected to Will marrying that hateful hag.

Sure Juan! Any word on Scotland Yard arrests for making posts critical of the Sussexes?

Bouzy is a well known lying shit using the Sussexes to get himself a name, just like Scobie.

No one pays the slightest attention to him except the most clinically disturbed of Meghan's "fans" if MI5 is watching anyone, it's him.

Another day, another fake threat of Exposure of the Haters to the Wrath of Divine Justice from The Troll With A Thousand Sock Puppet Accounts.

Fuck off, darling. It's never worked and it's not going to work now.

Mentioning Bouzy was a mistake.

Camilla Tominey in the Telegraph: It is fascinating to read that Samantha Cohen, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s former private secretary, is poised to join Downing Street as the Prime Minister’s “gatekeeper”. Some have wondered whether the move could put the Australian, 50, at odds with Carrie Johnson. But if you’ve worked for Harry and Meghan, then you are arguably prepared for anything.

- I guess Camilla didn't appreciate the threats but wasn't intimidated either.

She wasn't ugly, but she was never pretty.

Jolie laide?

"Scarlett O'Hara was not beautiful but men seldom realized it when caught by her charms as the Tarleton twins were."

R372 - Is that you Meghan? Aren't you busy trying to find out how to get that foul smell off your property so you can sell it?

Here is a bit of information on who Bouzy is and what he does. This is a post from LSA:

"Guys, there is a big rabbit hole that developed over the last 24 hours. Christopher Bouzy admitted over an audio Twitter group meeting with the Sussex Squad, that he is indeed being privately funded to target people who do not support H&M. He admits Sussex Squad funds him, and allegedly another source. Sussex Squad women openly admitted to doxxing and targeting accounts. They recorded 4 hours of conversation. It got absolutely whacky. One of the main squad leaders resigned this morning.

You can check Duchess of Narcissus’ channel here to see her first analysis of the first hour of that audio group meeting. She is going to post Part 2 on Sunday.

Check GETTR also. There’s some great reading/resources there too.

Christopher Bouzy allegedly used his information from Bot Sentinel to find people and doxx them. This is illegal use of Twitter’s API and people having the right to free speech. Sign the petition here.

Here is the info from the petition:

“FEB 13, 2022 — In a shocking admission, Christopher Bouzy implicitly admitted that his report was a one sided vitriol attack on those who do not support Meghan Markle and Harry. He published in his tweet that he has received substantial donation from Sussex Squad, a team of coordinated bots and few individuals whose mission is to propagate lies about members of the British Royal Family as vengeance on behalf of Meghan Markle. Bouzy must be stopped. Twitter must take action.”"

Way to go, Pet.

R364 I suspect if Diana had lived Harry probably wouldn't have married Meghan in the first place (and who knows if William would have married Kate). Harry's marriage to Meghan had something of an Oedipus feel to it. Meghan is Diana resurrected in Harry's eyes. Also I suspect Diana would have been a difficult mother-in-law and jealous of attention he daugthers-in-law get. Also, there is no way Diana would have allowed Harry to leave the royal family or turn on his brother. Diana always told friends that William was her legacy and that she wanted Harry to be his brother's wing man and biggest support.

Diana would have been the perfect person to call out Meghan for Meghan's outrageous lies.

R382 - If anyone would have seen Meghan for the narcissistic grifter she was, it would have been Diana. She would have rushed to protect Harry from Meghan's cluthes - not least because the now menopausal Diana would have seen immediately that the L.A. actress wanted in to make a splash and crowd everyone else out, unlike the dutiful, savvy, sensible woman her older son married. Diana wouldn't have tolerated Meghan taking up all the air in the room for a moment.

Diana would have known that Meghan was using Harry and the BRF.

That said, if Diana had lived, Harry may not have needed to recreate his mother with a wife.

Martin Bashir has a great deal to answer for. Diana dismissed those RPOs because of the lies Bashir told in order to get her to do the Panorama interview. If she hadn't dismissed them because she thought they were spies for the BRF, she might have lived, and a great many things that happened since, might not have.

Charles might have remained a divorced unmarried man for the rest of his life, as marrying Camilla whilst Diana lived would have been much more difficult.

Diana would have gone on making a fool of herself with men like Fayed.

Harry wouldn't be the little red haired boy walking behind Mum's coffin.

And Meghan Markle might be struggling to sell makeup on QVC with her "acting" career over.

Well, well, Eugenie has finally outed herself as the Windsor mole, appearing with Harry in first-class box seats at the Superbowl in L.A. yesterday. Neither spouse was on attendance, most the two cousins.

The first member if the royal family to "visit Meghan and Harry in L.A. since Megxit".

I would guess that Eugenie really believes that this far down the line, she has nothing to lose by taking herself out and putting two fingers up to her Gran, her Uncle and fututre King, and her cousin and his wife, her future King and Queen.

Well, one would expect no less from an offspring of that cackling demented loudmouthed hag of a mother and that reckless, stupid, lying, dirty old man of a father.

Wonder if she's planning to move to America, too. And how interesting that neither spouse appeared. Allegedly, her husband is pro-BRF and i suspect Meghan wanted the focus to be on Harry The Royal Windsor.

The likelihood that either Windsor likes American football is, I suspect, quite slim.

This was a pointed gesture by both parties, and it's unlikely that it is lost on the Wales', Cambridges, Wessexes, or her father and mother.

The Yorks have much in common with the Sussexes: they have an innate gift for cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

Interesting that the dumb, placid Bea may not be as dumb as we thought.

Camilla has the COVID.

R384 I can't stand Andrew's daughters. There has always been something off about them but given the parents they were almost certainly going to turn out to be undesirable.

Also they are almost as ugly as the Willis/Moore monsters.

There's one of two scenarios going on here, isn't there?

Eugenie is still close to Harry and basically showing she can't be trusted with family secrets or Eugenie is a bridge to Harry because of her closeness.

I can't decide which. You read the Eugenie and Beatrice are mortified by their father's situation but loyal to him, so it has to rankle on an emotional level how he's being handled, even if it makes sense in the pragmatic sense. It would be easy to rationalize Harry as being similarly handled.

Diana, in spite of her faults, wasn’t known to meddle in others’ relationships (unless she was pursuing a married man she wanted for herself). Despite the wishful thinking, I don’t believe she would’ve spent her days plotting and scheming against her daughters-in-law. Besides, I’m 100% confident her death influenced hers sons’ choices in wives. If she were still alive, both would’ve likely married different types than sporty and down-to-earth Kate or the older and slightly domineering (self-assured?) Meghan.

By his own admission, Harry was deeply affected by the death of his mother, so very likely he would have been a different man had she lived. There was still the War of the Roses between the parents to screw him up, but that's child's play compared to early death and a death like she died. I would be inclined to think William still would have married Kate on the basis her life and temperament seem to be the opposite of what he's known. If Diana retained as much influence over Harry as she seems to have had, if Meghan had even come along and Diana was leery of her, I'd bet personally low odds Meghan would have lasted a week, let alone made it to the church on time.

R386 - Neither York gel was particularly attractive, and, as we know, their sense of style is beyond nonexistent: it's suicidal.

But Euge was the shaper, thirstier one, and in allying herself with the outcast Sussexes, she is virtually confirming a war between her family and Charles'. In the modern era, of course, this will likely be a petulant rather than dangerous gesture. In former eras, it would be the reverse. It isn't as if Euge is going to raise an army to depose Charles and his line, or has to flee the country to take service with a foreign royal house . . .

Just the same, it does seem as if her fury at Charles and the Cambridges for their contempt for her parents is far deeper than she has let show. Her sister, in contrast, either isn't eaten up with that sort of rage and resentment, or is too smart to let it show. And, allegedly, the husbands of both York girls are not happy with Euge's alliance and think it foolish.

Harry has lost all his friends in the UK, who know better than anyone which side of the bread the social status butter is spread on in Britain. The Wessexes despise the Yorks, as well, and Sophie is closer to the Queen than the York girls at this point.

It's quite ugly, at bottom, as family civil wars always are.

It's somewhat ironic, given the history of the Wars of the Roses. The Yorks and the Lancasters fought over the right to the throne (Martin based Game of Thrones on the Wars of the Roses: for Yorks read Starks, for Lancasters read Lannisters). The Charles and then William will become Duke of Lancaster upon accession to the throne, just as the eldest son becomes Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall.

The Yorks, historically, had the better claim, but lost the whole shooting match and that loss ushered in the Tudors.

They'll lose again. Because the Lancasters still have the upper hand. Granted, these are not the same Yorks and Lancasters, but it is rather interesting to see this cycling round again.

Think of Harry as the ill-fated George, Duke of Clarence, whose traitorous shifts of loyalty to his older brother, Edward IV, eventually got him into the Tower, and there he was drowned in a butt of malmsey. Shakespeare's Richard III leaves out Clarence's traitorous actions against his brother and paints him as the innocent victim of Richard, but, in fact, he was anything but innocent.

All Euge needed was a White Rose of York embroidered on her KN-95 mask.

And they wonder why people keep following this shit.

When Eugenie never makes another balcony appearance or gets another invite to the Royal Box, she'll have only herself to blame.

Her next big genius move: an essay in the Daily Mail proclaiming her father's innocence

/sarcasm

Eugenie and Harry are still cousins and practically grew up together, why on earth shouldn't they still be close just because other family members have fallen out?

At least her appearance with him will fuck up the Sussex stans who think that somehow Andrew exemplifies everything about the royal family that Meghan supposedly (in the stans' little minds) stands against.

R393 yeah but problem is this could damage his reputation with Sussex stans who are basically the only people supporting them at this point. The Sussex nuts love going after Andrew and yet, the Yorks are the only people who still talk to H&M.

R391. As if any York will ever be on any balcony anywhere...Papa York is going to get kicked out of the Royal Lodge shortly after TQ PASSES (yes troll, passes)

Soon we will never see any York anywhere, and that is a good thing.

I read something in one of more credible papers that asserted the same thing: he's out of Royal Lodge at some point. Though that paper claimed it will be with a handsome buyout from the family. Queen's worth privately 365M pounds. Ten million wouldn't put a dent in it.

That’s a lot less than the billions they are alleged to have.

People often confuse the wealth held in trust for the nation (the occupied royal palaces, the Royal Collection, the Crown jewels) etc. with the private wealth of the monarch. The Times calculates the private wealth. I don't know how but that is what it claims to do.

The reports on the personal fortunes of very wealthy people are always wrong. Their accountants hide money all over the place. Suffice to say the Queen is loaded and will probably leave Andrew more than enough to keep him in luxury for the rest of his miserable life.

Probably so, R399, but in any event she's not worth privately the billion or two value of the state assets. She can't sell 'em, so to her they're worthless assets.

Wasn’t it Queen Victoria who gave their real estate holdings to the government or something? How did that work?

Anyone who liked Diana will never see this homewrecker as Queen.

R401: Since 1760, the net income of The Crown Estate has been surrendered to the Exchequer by the Monarch under successive Civil List Acts, passed at the beginning of each reign.

The Crown Estate is though owned by the Monarch in right of the Crown. This means that the Queen owns it by virtue of holding the position of reigning Monarch, for as long as she is on the throne, as will her successor. Responsibility for managing The Crown Estate is trusted to us, under the Crown Estate Act, and the Queen is not involved in management decisions.

By contrast, the Queen also has private assets, which include Balmoral and Sandringham, and are hers to deal with as she chooses. But by no means all of what is commonly called Crown Land or Crown Property forms part of The Crown Estate.

Although the ownership of some property can be traced back to Edward the Confessor, the estate as a whole essentially dates from 1066. After the Norman Conquest, all the land belonged to William "in right of The Crown" because he was King. Despite centuries of change in law and custom, the underlying ownership of The Crown still exists and there is always a presumption in favour of The Crown unless it can be proved that the land belongs to someone else.

The Sovereign's estates had always been used to raise revenue, and over time large areas were granted to nobles. The estate fluctuated in size and value but by 1760, when George III acceded to the throne, the asset had been reduced to a small area producing little income - revenue which George III needed to fulfil the Sovereign's fiscal responsibilities to the nation.

By that time taxes had become the prime source of revenue for the United Kingdom and Parliament administered the country, so an agreement was reached that the Crown Lands would be managed on behalf of the Government and the surplus revenue would go to the Treasury. In return the King would receive a fixed annual payment - formerly known as the Civil List. This agreement has, at the beginning of each reign, been repeated by every succeeding Sovereign. Crown Lands in Scotland were included within the arrangement from 1832.

R402 You are Betty Crocker and I claim my five pounds.

R402 Anyone who liked Diana is a fucking hypocrite as she had no qualms about wrecking homes herself if she fancied the hubby.

I've been curious, should the Monarchy ever be abolished, how they would determine the distribution of the Crown Lands, etc. Given that those lands did originally belong to a person and were turned over based on an agreement of reciprocal funding. I'm not a Brit, but wouldn't there be a legal question of who gets what?

The idea some people might have that the current Royal Family would simply be turned out with nothing (other than what is privately owned, like Sandrinham) has always struck me as preposterous.

It would be some legal battle.

That's long settled. See the link about the Crown estate. Most of the holdings of the Crown are held in trust for the nation. There's nothing left to fight about.

R406 - Except under a violent revolt, which I don't see happening, the Windsors would keep everything that belongs to them personally, which is quite a bit. Investment portfolios, real estate holdings, and a small fortune in art and jewellery. Sandringham and Balmoral were personal purchases. I assume the family would keep them.

The Crown Estates occupy a somewhat murky middle ground between the government and the monarchy. If the monarchy were abolished, my guess is that these would revert to the government; what the government would do with them is unknown. I mean, it isn't likely that BP and Windsor Castle would be turned into flats. They would likely serve as major tourist attractions. Kensington Palace and Clarence House are also part of the Crown Estates - the family would likely retain their personal furnishings. KP is already open to tourists at certain times of the years.

Much of the huge art collection has been vested in the state and left to the nation by the monarchy. That said, the core personal collection that the Queen retains is still one of the most impressive in the world, and the family would of course retain that.

The Duchy of Cornwall and its revenues would be a problem. Despite being defined as a corporation, it is untaxed. With the Duchy no longer the personal preserve of the monarchy's eldest son, those revenues would probably come under taxation, and its name changed. Ditto the Duchy of Lancaster, whose revenues accrue untaxed to the monarch, on the assumption that s/he has no way to earn a living.

Charles and the Queen each make a large voluntary contribution to the Treasury of those annual untaxed revenues. With the monarchy abolished, all those revenues would have to be sorted out.

Charles' country home, Highgrove, in Gloucestershire, was purchased for him by the Duchy, and it is now owned by a Trust, and is also open to tourists at certain times of the year.

All in all, the family might give a large sigh of relief, settle down to enjoy the personal wealth it has accrued but without the aggravation.

George will become a happy botanist; Charlotte will become a model or marry Prince Christian of Denmark (as I have always planned she should ), or both; and Louis will become a pop singer with global adulation.

I think they'll be fine, but the public will find it, as Henry Higgins said of the ball, "deadly dull".

I know the Queen is still mentally alert, but who do you think most has her ear now? Charles and Camilla? Is she still completely ruling the roost or is she listening to others?

R406: It isn't complicated. It is plain that almost everything reverts to the nation in the absence of a monarchy, except their private wealth. So here we go:

[quote]The Crown Estates occupy a somewhat murky middle ground between the government and the monarchy.

There is no murkiness. From the Crown Estate website: "The Crown Estate is though owned by the Monarch in right of the Crown. This means that the Queen owns it by virtue of holding the position of reigning Monarch, for as long as she is on the throne, as will her successor."

If there is no monarchy, there is no monarch to own in right of the crown. Reverts to the nation.

[quote]The Duchy of Cornwall and its revenues would be a problem.

From the Duchy website: "The Duchy of Cornwall is a private estate established by Edward III in 1337 to provide independence to his son and heir, Prince Edward. A charter ruled that each future Duke of Cornwall would be the eldest surviving son of the Monarch and heir to the throne. "

If there is no monarchy there is no throne. If there is no throne, there is no heir. At which point the Duchy is the nation's.

[quote]Ditto the Duchy of Lancaster, whose revenues accrue untaxed to the monarch, on the assumption that s/he has no way to earn a living.

From the Duchy website: "The Duchy’s main purpose is to provide income for the Sovereign as Duke of Lancaster, although the Sovereign is not entitled to any of the capital assets of the Duchy. Established over 700 years ago, the Duchy of Lancaster is a body created under Charter. The net income of the Duchy is paid to the reigning Sovereign as Duke of Lancaster. The annual accounts of the Duchy are submitted to Parliament. Full copies of recent years’ accounts can be found on this website."

If there is no monarchy, there is no sovereign so there is no one to be paid. Reverts to the nation.

[quote]Charles and the Queen each make a large voluntary contribution to the Treasury of those annual untaxed revenues. With the monarchy abolished, all those revenues would have to be sorted out.

From the British Monarchy website: "The Queen pays tax. In 1992, The Queen volunteered to pay income tax and capital gains tax, and since 1993 her personal income has been taxable as for any other taxpayer. The Queen has always been subject to Value Added Tax and pays local rates on a voluntary basis." "The Duchy (of Cornwall) is tax exempt, but The Prince of Wales voluntarily pays income tax at the highest rate on his taxable income from it.

Oh god, these Royals are hideous. There's no reason for the monarchy, absolutely none. At least be hot. These people are dogs.

The Duchy of Cornwall is not a corporation.

From the Duchy of Cornwall annual report:

Governance structure

The Duchy is one of a kind.[italic] It is neither corporation nor company, trust or settlement. [/italic]In the interests of trust, transparency and good practice, we provide details of our approach to governance on pages 38 to 41 to explain how the estate is run in a way that is designed to provide clear direction and oversight.

From the Duchy of Lancaster's website:

The net revenues from the property and investment portfolio are paid to the Keeper of the Privy Purse, the member of the Royal Household responsible for managing the Sovereign’s finances. [italic]The Sovereign voluntarily pays tax on the income which She receives from the Duchy of Lancaster.[/italic]

R409 It's been said by press insiders that Charles, with support from William, has been calling the shots since Philip retired. The Queen still has the final say but the stage is being set for after she is gone.

Recall too the Sovereign Grant is generated from the profits of the Crown Estate. 15%, under the Sovereign Grant Act, passed by Parliament. The balance goes to the Treasury so it is incorrect to assert there is any murkiness. From the Crown Estate website:

"Our purpose

To create lasting and shared prosperity [italic]for the nation[/italic]."

That makes it sound like Philip "called the shots" r414, which I doubt very much.

Wasn't there an early arrangement between the Queen and Philip that he was to be in charge of making family-related decisions and discipline since her time was taken up by reigning duties? So the boys went to Gordonstoun, he tried to "toughen up" Charles, and kept Fergie away from royal events after the toe incident. I'm curious to know what his relationship with Andrew was like and what his thoughts on handling him were. Andrew was their "making up" child after a difficult time in their marriage and Philip had returned from several months on an overseas tour on Brittania.

R411 - I don't know if you've noticed, but monarchies are not beauty contests. There are, in my opinion, only a few gorgeous royals, some now middle-aged: King Felipe of Spain, Crown Prince Haakon of Norway, and Prince Guillaume of Luxembourg. Women: only Princess Madeleine of Sweden was super-pretty amongst the blood princesses. Of course, there was Diana, and Mary of Denmark and her sister in law are reasonably attractive.

But, generally, dear, the thing is all based on birth order. It's a crapshoot.

Outside Europe, though . . . ex-Queen Soraya was a fucking goddess, selected by the Shah of Iran for just that. She was allegedly the love of his life, but she couldn't bear children, so he divorced her for another quite lovely youngster, Farah Diba. He picked both women out from photographs.

New Ipsos poll out today shows that 52% are in favour of Camilla being Queen. Only 22% support abolishing the monarchy.

I don't know r411, I haven't watched the Crown, but decisions relating to what the Queen does aren't private family affairs.

R419 As mentioned on another thread where posters were announcing the premature death of the British monarchy . . .

such reports are greatly exaggerate.

We may be periodically exasperated by individual members, but basically we support retaining the institution.

If Charles would just do the decent thing and die in a month or so, watch that support skyrocket for William and Kate, Prince and Princess of Wales, and their adorable young family.

It will be King George VI and Queen Elizabeth in 1936 after the Abdication all over again.

Harry, as usual, ends up on the wrong side of history again, coming out with that fuck you to his father by brining up Diana two days after the Queen's message about Camilla.

They just never get the timing quite right, do they?