Breaking News: Queen Camilla on the cards

I find the post script, "Your servant" oddly moving.

She put the security of the monarchy first again and in stating this, paves the way for it to happen, which is what Charles wants, without him taking any flack for it.

Camilla, bless her, would probably accept a gin and tonic as happily as Queen Consort.

Well, well it all worked out just as Charles wanted in the end.

"Princess Consort" would have sounded daft at Camilla's age.

Beatrix, the former Queen of the Netherlands, is now Princess Beatrix.

That bitch stole my future title.

I'd rather QEII outlive her son although it would be kinder to her if she didn't. Charles isn't very impressive. Rather see William.

I'm very surprised that she is so openly getting all the ducks in a row. She is doing everything she can to ensure the monarchy survives her death. I guess if she says so now, the people will follow?

I wonder how William feels about this?

Given everything from the last two years William was no doubt consulted.

What will I get?!?!

In a perfect world, forgotten, R9.

If William were ready and willing to take the throne she wouldn't have done this. William doesn't seem in any rush to take on that responsibility. I think now that the Queen has publicly given this statement Charles will be more comfortable taking on the role knowing that Camilla can be at his side with the Queen's blessing.

There was no question William would take the throne. That's just some crazy fantasy indulged on the internet. There is an heir. That's how it works. It isn't William. And it definitely isn't Britain's Got Alternatives.

Liz knows she fucked up badly by not letting Charles have Camilla from the get go, and she's trying to make amends. Her foolishness in this regard, pushed by that bitch the Queen Mother, cost several people their lives.

[quote] Camilla can be at his side with the Queen's blessing

At least he will get to do it with the help and support of the woman he loves.

But it won’t be up to Betty Mountbatten. Once she’s dead, Charles decides.

I hope she leaves me her handbags.

It isn’t up to Charles’ either. Only Parliament can give her a different title to use. She’d been HM The Queen legally

R16: You go through me, bitch. We've had this chat. I can break the other arm if you want.

[quote] I hope she leaves me her handbags.

Charlotte will get the handbags. George will get the tiaras.

I like ermine!

The monarch met with members of the local community during a tea at Sandringham, her country estate in eastern England where she normally spends the anniversary. The 95-year-old queen leaned on a walking stick as she chatted with guests.

Despite recent concerns about her health, Elizabeth moved freely and appeared to use her stick more to lean on when she stopped moving rather than depending on it as she walked around the room.

The monarch’s health has been a concern since she canceled a two-day trip to Northern Ireland in October and was quietly admitted to a hospital overnight for preliminary tests. Doctors advised her to rest and restrict herself to light duties.

But in her message, she promised she would continue to serve and said she was optimistic about the upcoming Platinum Jubilee celebrations.

“I am reminded of how much we can be thankful for,″ she wrote. “These last seven decades have seen extraordinary progress socially, technologically and culturally that have benefitted us all; and I am confident that the future will offer similar opportunities to us and especially to the younger generations in the United Kingdom and throughout the Commonwealth.”

The sovereign signed the message “Your servant Elizabeth R.”

[quote]I'm very surprised that she is so openly getting all the ducks in a row. She is doing everything she can to ensure the monarchy survives her death. I guess if she says so now, the people will follow?

It was probably provided to QE (by Charles of course) as a great opportunity to announce this in order to distract the people about his poor brother!

She's a raving beauty, Brits sure know how to break those stereotypes about inbreeding.

When / if there comes a time I need a stick to walk, I want one like that. It's pretty unobtrusive and doesn't look so "medical equipment" and "orthopedic."

Can someone please explain to this old American why the heck the “House of Windsor” formerly Saxe Coburg Gotha formerly Tudors still is supported by UK citizens?

Neighbours is being axed from British telly, Prince Charles's side piece is going to be Queen... bad day for Brits who came of age in the 80s.

[quote] Can someone please explain to this old American why the heck the “House of Windsor” formerly Saxe Coburg Gotha formerly Tudors still is supported by UK citizens?

Because it tends not to result in monstrosities such as this, although it is not immune to bad apples.

R15, once she is dead, theBritish government decides. And The Queen would never have made this statement without the agreement of the present government.

To piss you off, R25. Now why not fuck off, too... that stupid question gets asked every time and answered the same way every time.

If turnabout is fair play, I guess the natural rejoinder is why are American public schools such lousy educators?

Hooray! Queen Camilla!

"Queen Consort"? Funny way to spell Fugly Fucking Husband-Stealing Whore.

I think this was the correct move . Camilla did not tread on the Princess of Wales title. She has conducted herself as Duchess of Cornwall very well.

They say when Queen Elizabeth lies in state her coffin will be piled with crown jewels. That will be a sight to see.

To announce them as His Majesty King Charles the Third and Camilla, The Princess Consort would have made her sound like a Courtesan/Whore.

It also solves the problem of her title if Charles dies before her, she simply continues to be HM Queen Camilla.

Ugh!

QEII's coffin will be topped by the Imperial State Crown, and the Royal Orb and Sceptre as her father's was in 1952.

No, her coffin will be encrusted with jewels of all types, like the opening to "Family Affair".

Camilla with a smile - The Winner Takes It All

It’s Betty Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg. Phil was never a Mountbatten.

Charles has been married to Camilla longer than he was married to Diana.

Nobody is going to be looking at the pile of dusty old crown jewels. They will be blinded by the exquisite beauty and touching sentiment and tase of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex's floral wreath, designed by Maurice Harris and based on The Queen's secret favorite colours and flowers, revealed in the many intimate private walks shared by The Queen and the Duchess through the royal parks and gardens over the years of their close friendship.

[R19] Imagine the bitch fight between George and Charlotte over the hangbags and tiaras. Enter cousin Archie. "Hey, you guys... just MELLOW out! I mean, take thirty minutes for some mental fitness! Here, have a hit offa this lovely spliff pa just lit for me... Since mom snuffed it in that helicopter accident he's been like, so... relaxed!"

I said in every pertinent thread here that she would be Queen Camilla.

So many posted "reasons" why that title would be denied her.

AS IF Charles would have countenanced anything other.

Does the British monarch in any way legally serve the subjects (British citizens)? Do they serve the crown, as well?

It's no Rule Britannia, but I think there's a nice touch of majesty and modern... OBE, R37.

Has anybody checked on the “Charles should stand aside” troll?

Charles is gay. Camilla is his fag hag. They've never had any sexual intercourse. He's a mean, bitchy, spiteful, bitter, passive-aggressive shit.

He married Diana under pressure, impregnated her then froze her out. Wouldn't you go a little nuts if you realized you were tricked into being a Royal babymaker?

R46, still in solitary, next to the cells of The York Girls are Nice and Will Get More Royal Engagements troll, the Queen Mother Died Broke and Left Everything to the Queen so Couldn't Have Left Trust Funds troll and the Even When You Post Benign Things Like Merry Christmas You are Klan Grannies Megaloon troll.

ALL HAIL THE QUEEN !!!

Charles is a very modern royal: an environmentalist when everybody else laughed; a fervent proponent of keeping London's skyline uncluttered; the founder of the extraordinary charity The Prince's Trust, which helps young people; a life-long exemplar of physical fitness (at age 73, maybe not so much, but otherwise always active and fit); and a loyal supporter of HM.

About Diana and Camilla: As a fellow Scorpio, I could completely understand Charles, if not 100% condone his giving in to his personal desires. But Fate offered him the brass ring a second time, and Charles wasn't about to put an ancient notion of marriage and the British monarchy ahead of Camillla again.

NOW at last, you may have some food, Mummy!

That wasn't so hard, was it?

r28 I imagine such an announcement meant the official opposition party leadership was consulted too via the privy council.

Don’t forget the note accompanying the wreath in the wannabe’s exquisite handwriting R41.

R48 HM Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother died cash poor [BOLD] because [/BOLD] she'd set up the trust funds, her estate wasn't close to bankrupt.

The paintings and The Greville Jewels left to HM The Queen covered the estimated £7million ($10million) debt several times over. Best of all as Monarch to Monarch it was tax free.

You missed the joke R54

[quote] I guess if she says so now, the people will follow?

According to the British newspapers today, now the Queen has said so, it's no longer even a question.

After today Camilla absolutely WILL be crowed Queen Consort when Elizabeth dies.

I bet this was decided five, ten, fifteen years ago.

Somewhere in Iowa, another beloved queen familiar to Dataloungers is watching this news on TV with his friends right now and shrieking "NO!!!"

Just hang around long enough in this family and everyone will one day accept you!

How is the British media taking the news?

I expected far more cuntery than this, bitches. FAR MORE.

Seems oddly appropriate that the UK would have a snide, selfish, false whore as a queen.

So when King Charles dies does she remain Queen Camilla? Won't Kate become Queen when William becomes king?

R63 - she'll be the "Queen Step-mother".

[quote] Won't Kate become Queen when William becomes king?

Camilla will be the dowager queen. Kate will be the queen consort.

R65 But be referred to as HM Queen Camilla for the rest of her life as there is no clash in names.

Technically Dowager, but as nobody will use a similar style she stays as HM Queen.

HMQ had nothing to do with it, r13. The only person who knew of Charles’ feelings for Camilla was Louis Mountbatten.

Charles hesitated, went off to the navy, and while he was gone, Camilla married.

Charles did believe Camilla wasn’t suitable, but we will never know if HMQ would have refused him permission to marry Camilla.

As Charles' wife she will be The Queen. As his widow she will be Queen Camilla. There is no such title as the inelegant Queen Step-Mother. Thank God.

While Queen Mary was still alive (before George VI died), she was known officially as "HM Queen Mary" as opposed to "HM the Queen" (who later became "HM the Queen Mother").

So when Elizabeth II dies, Charles will be "HM the King" and Camilla will be "HM the Queen." But if then Charles pre-deceases his wife, she will be "HM Queen Camilla" and Catherine will be "HM the Queen."

Charles is a cocksucker as is his brother Edward. Edward VIII was sucking Wally's cock. Diana managed to bring some straight genes to produce hetero William and Harry.

I'd love to hear the Queen and Charles' fights:

Q: "Ow, piss-off you jug-eared wanker. I wish I'd had an abortion!"

C: "It wouldn't be your first would it, you stupid old cow?""

Camilla is NOT my queen! Charles and Camilla both screwed Diana over, royally.

Why do the Brits always pick such ugly whore wives? Diana was the one saving grace but after she was gone, back to scavenging the horse stable.

To be brutally honest, that's why Diana was so popular outside the UK, the first time in generations where royal family didn't make everyone's eyes bleed. Not that she was a model or anything but at least Diana was decent looking with straight teeth.

[quote]So when Elizabeth II dies, Charles will be "HM the King" and Camilla will be "HM the Queen." But if then Charles pre-deceases his wife, she will be "HM Queen Camilla" and Catherine will be "HM the Queen."

And what will I be?

It's weird how 'Her Majresty' survives the death of a Monarch but 'The' doesn't.

We're so fucking pedantic here in the UK.

Whom do you suppose is spinning in her grave the fastest tonight: Diana, or the Queen Mother?

This is what they both never wanted to see happen (for very different reasons).

R67, Given that Diana had to pass "Hymen Inspection," you can bet your bippy that HM would not have given her heir permission to marry Camilla!

R73, That's also your description of Catherine?!

That's a myth, r77.

Diana did not have to pass hymen inspection, but rather was checked out only to see if she could bear children.

At first, Diana was great press for the monarchy. She was very attractive and came from a good family. The most refreshing addition to the royals. And then they ate her up and picked their bad teeth with her bones.

Bad people consume the well intentioned naive. Diana was unknowingly set up and the Charles, Elizabeth and Camilla all had a hand in it.

R79, So you say.

[quote] Why do the Brits always pick such ugly whore wives? Diana was the one saving grace but after she was gone, back to scavenging the horse stable.

Diana was definitely attractive, but she also had a horse face (long nose, long mid-face).

Camilla was really smart--she played the long game in being quiet and scandal-free when she married Charles in 2005, and now she's finally been rewarded.

r80 The spencers are not a good family and were indeed are notorious for their bitter feuding and arguments.Where did you hear they were a good family?!

[quote]Charles is a very modern royal

LMFAO Have you seen what his idea of modern architecture is? It's anything but modern or authentic for that matter.

The Spencers were a good family as in prominent/noble. Diana had an informal title as lady and her father was an earl. I am quite certain that if the wallsl of Buckingham Palace could speak we'd know that the royals are not a "good" family, themselves. If infighting and feuding are the markers are the marker of a bad family.

Diana may have not been a super model but she was pretty enough to be on the cover of hundreds of magazines and generate millions in ad dollars. Camilla's face could knock a buzzard off a shit wagon.

Bow before me peasants, I AM YOUR NEW QUEEN!!

This thread made it to 40 posts before the Markle monomaniacs descended.

As recently as 18 months ago, only 13% of UK citizens were interested in a queen Camilla and over 60% said she should use princess consort or no title at all. Good luck with that Charles. Nobody likes a coward and a liar.

It’s an hereditary monarchy, not Survivor Windsor R90.

r86 You are presenting Diana as innocent and chewed up by a bad family and contrasting that with the Spencers as being a good family.I suspect you are now slightly changing what you meant by good family.

Look up what Diana and some of her siblings did to their stepmum Raine Spencer.Practically stepping over her when she was at the bottom of the stairs after being pushed. The Spencers were not a good family and Diana was no innocent.I could never imagine stepping over an older person as a teenager. Among the aristrocracy or good families as the term you use , the Spencers were among the most notorious with a bad reputation for their behaviour towards others.

For pete's sake he's 73 and looks awful- why bother? He'll be dead in a couple years. He doesn't even want it.

Hate to break the news R89 but she's a punchline now. Get used to ot.

If we're lucky, he'll die before the queen.however she looks like she may be on that path herself. The dramatic and sudden weight loss is never good.

Charles looks like a 73 year old. What is he supposed to look like? A 42 Year old? Get used to it. It is called old age for a reason.

Well, R96, DLers regularly report looking 25 when they are 65.

But if then Charles pre-deceases his wife, she will be "HM Queen Camilla" and Catherine will be "HM the Queen."

But how will they be addressed personally if somebody speaks to them? Both get 'Your Majesty'?

R98 I would imagine Camilla would revert to HRH, as surely that can only be one 'Her Majesty' at any one time?

I think Her Majesty sticks for life after the coronation, but 'The' is removed from her title after her husband dies.

It

She's a damned fool. Her son said Camilla would never be Queen or Queen consort

He also said he would never marry camilla. Time for the disgusting monarchy to end. They are all liars and grifters

Curtsy Fucker!

This is why Brits drink so much. I cant imaging being ruled by such an ugly cunt and having to eventually call her queen. UGH, like going to need extra thick beer goggles for that old sea hag.

R25 Odd, you don't seem to ask the same question of the:

Danes

Norwegians

Swedes

Spanish

Japanese

Belgians

Dutch

Luxembourgians

Lichtensteinians

And, of course, the Houses of Saud, Brunei, Qatar, Thailand, etc., etc.

Or did you think Britain was some sort of lone outlier?

Europe isn't America.

Britain's monarchy is deeply entwined with its character. It left Rome because of a monarch. It represents history, tradition, character, and the Sovereign is Britain's Head of State.

It hasn't done nearly the economic damage to British citizenry as the economic inequity through rigged tax policies favouring the rich and corporate interests that your duly elected Congress has enabled over the last 40 years.

Can a Yank please explain to this poor Limey why his wonderfully democratic royalty free country has the highest level of income inequality in the First World, and why Americans like sheep don't even root about it?

The monarchy isn't Britain's problem.

You could always try a history book.

P.S. The Danish monarchy is the oldest in Europe. The Danes adore their monarchy. Why don't you ask them?

^*riot (not root) Fucking autocorrect.

Camilla has been accepted by The Queen and Prince William and gets on well with Kate and Sophie (The Queen’s favourite). She has a soothing effect on Charles and makes him appear less peevish and more human in public. She does good work with charities (mainly on literacy, domestic violence and osteoporosis). And her kids have helped her a lot by not putting a foot wrong in the years since her marriage.

She’s a good sport and will make Charles a better king. And she has played the long game very well.

R103 Another beer bellied moron from "abroad" with the intellectual grasp of a gnat.

The monarch doesn't rule anything, and hasn't for a very very long time.

She reigns. She had no power to "rule".

And it is her son who will reign, not his wife, whether she look like a comfy country woman in her 70s or a Botticelli angel.

And, frankly, were just as pleased not to have you as a fellow citizen.

The gene pool is eroded enough as it is.

^*we're (not were)

Fucking autocorrect.

And don’t forget we have the silly First Lady role in the US. An unelected nonentity who has a public role based solely on whom she is related to /sleeping with.

R99 No. When QEII became Queen Regnant her mother, formerly Queen Consort, became Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. Her grandmother, Queen Mary, was also still living and remained Her Majesty Queen Mary. There is a famous photo of tfuneral. Queens veiled in black at George VI's funeral. One the new Queen Regnant, two former Queens Consort.

You cannot undo Queenship after an anointing.

She would likely become Queen Dowager or something like that.

[quote]The monarch doesn't rule anything, and hasn't for a very very long time.

Yes we know, it was meant as a joke because your country still supports and praises them like they do. As an American, it's a weird dichotomy. As you know America was not established by the Danes, Norwegians, Swedes, Spanish, Japanese, Belgians or the Dutch. America is the child of England is a sort of way who established it's own country without a monarchy. Proving it didn't need or want one, becoming one of the most powerful in countries in the world in that time frame. Strange to see it's parent still cling to such an outdated concept 200 years later.

R92 Cheers, SA.

Not to mention the stellar example of English aristocracy manhood at by that spiky, arrogant, womanisimg, selfish brother of hers, Earl Spencer.

The middle sister, Sarah, also had a bout with anorexia and serious drinking in her teens.

Johnny Spencer knocked Frances around and forced her to undergo painful tests to see if there was something "wrong" because she'd had 3 girls in a row and he was wild to have a son to inherit the earldom. Oh, the irony, as even in the 1950s science knew that it is Dad who determines the sex of an embryo.

And then sued his wife for custody in one if the ugliest society divorces of the era. Frances' mother, Lady Ruth Fermoy, a feudal snob of the first order and a close friend of the Queen Mother, took the stand in the custody case and testified for her son in law, against her daughter. Because, you know, he had the title and Frances had some cheek finally fleeing her miserable marriage and abusive husband.

Ah, the Spencers . . . Charmers, the lot of them.

Only the homeliest sister, Jane, seems to have led a placid, uneventful life, although Sarah sorted herself out and managed a happy marriage and quiet family life.

No wonder Diana was mental.

The Spencers were not the Middletons by a long shot.

The UK accomplished the same thing as America by making the monarch a figure head. Already by the time of Victoria, the Monarch’s effective power was quite limited. In fact, even at the time of the American revolution, the policies the Americans rebelled against were more those of the parliament and prime monster than of the king himself.

^*set by that spoilt (not spiky), arrogant . . .

Fucking autocorrect.

R111 it's no stranger than the hugely progressive Danes holding on to it and your assertion that because America broke away from England and not Denmar and that's why so you so totally don't get it is a straw man. If it's an anachronistic system here, it is throughout those other countries.

It's government that holds real power, and, frankly, from the rest of the world's point of view, America is in deep shit and in no position to condescend.

Stop with the pious bullshit about omg they still have a monarchy. It's shallow, juvenile, historically blinkered, and, as bears endless repeating, hardly Britain's biggest p ru problem these days.

And last, but not least, you Yanks were insane for Diana and when the Queen visited in 1976 to mark your 200th, everyone in DC and Hollywood were fighting for invitations to the state dinner.

Do keep us posted on how Roe and Affirmative Action go at your newly configured SCOTUS, speaking of freedom and equality.

Oh, and let us know when you get around to overturning Citizens United, speaking of feudal anachronisms making it clear how "free" Americans are from unfair power structures.

I tell you, I wouldn't trade Betty for Citizens United.

R111, the US has a presidential system which is far more like the old monarchical system it replaced than the UK political system.

The UK isn't clinging on to anything. The monarchy has been updated and reformed significantly in the past 250 years. You really have no idea what you're talking about. The monarch is a ceremonial head of state, not the head of government. Americans struggle to understand that concept because they still have an outdated absolutist political system whereby the head of government is also the head of state, with a few "checks and balances" that they like to crow about thrown in, which lead only to polarisation, civil strife and eternal gridlock.

[QUOTE] She has conducted herself as Duchess of Cornwall very well.

Agreed, she has been flawless and a true royal duchess. I’m glad this Princess Consort stuff has been put to rest.

Now I’m wondering about her crowning, would she wear one of the following:

Crown of Queen Mary

Crown of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother

Crown of Queen Alexandra (reset with diamonds)

Crown of Queen Mary of Modena (reset with diamonds)

or have a brand-new crown commissioned for her own use?

Charles is known to be sentimental about his grandmother, but her boxy-looking crown isn’t very beautiful. But I wonder if the expense of a new crown, even with borrowed diamonds from another crown, would look too extravagant.

[quote]Wouldn't you go a little nuts if you realized you were tricked into being a Royal babymaker?

Point 1: They are all Royal babymakers. If you don't know that's your role when you marry a Prince you're even more of a moron than Diana was. Point 2: She was already plenty nuts before marriage.

I saw a doco about the Windsors last week where one of the more ancient of the Royal commentators came out with this. Noting that she was "unimpeded by any evidence of education", he added: "The courtiers were all amazed by Diana's ignorance. It was encyclopaedic."

R117, using the Queen Mother's crown would be grist to the mill of the Guardianistas due to the fact that it contains the Koh-i-Noor. I think Charles will be sensitive to the racial tensions that could be stirred up by that: he knows that Britain's demographics are changing radically and rapidly. The House of Windsor is no stranger to strategic moves aimed solely at self-preservation, whatever about the principle of the thing. You could say that this is summed up by Queen Mary's line in The Crown that the crown must always win but I fucking hate that show, so I won't quote it.

The Guardian crowd have been waiting for the Queen's death for years so that they can use what one expects will be Charles' short and unpopular reign to advocate for abolishing the monarchy. They know that the Queen is basically untouchable and one of the most admired heads of state, if not the most admired, in the world. The Queen's longevity and relatively good health into extreme old age seems to be a source of great annoyance and has forced them to bring out some of their stories during her lifetime - e.g. the stories last year on the Royal Prerogative and on the Queen's financials.

R118. Haha. What documentary was that? I want to hear them actually saying that. It’s quite true

R117 depends when it happens. If it's post COVID crisis they may go for the full month, if it's not they may opt for a more modern scaled down ceremonial with less hive glittering rocks.

I would imagine Charles wants his soul mate and saviour to have everything his beloved grandmother had, though.

I like Camilla and I was one of the few men who saw through Diana early on, but that said, I agree with poster upthread that for the monarch's best chances, an easier to handle looked for demise of Charles that puts the Cambridges full on is more desirable.

Camilla could heal the old wounds by just making a full confession to being an adulteress and home wrecker.

^*full monty (not month)

Diana knew perfectly well what was expected from her. We're talking about an aristo girl here -- they are being raised in the knowledge they need to provide an heir in case they marry into another aristo family.

R122. I think a panel discussion with the women whose husbands Diana slept with could help to heal old wounds as well.

R117 which one of these is the grandest? Camilla can wear these huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge tiaras, she has got the head and the hair for them.

I don't think there will be a new crown made for her.

R122 And you could heal the wearisome ennui you remarks engender by making a full confession to being a pompous arse.

Would the Wembley stage do, R125? At a stretch, maybe.

Can we get a postmortem confession from Diana the adulteress and homewrecker of Will Carling's marriage?

I remember when Diana died a woman commented to me that she was such a wonderful mother. I asked her if she would have liked to have Diana as a mother. She had no response.

What is up with the picture of Camilla at the top of this article?

That's a pint about the Koh-i-Noor.

It does bear repeating that Britian is still 75%+ white, you just wouldn't know it in some areas, mostly the bug urban centres.

And the Guardian has been losing money for years. The Mail is still Britain's most read paper. The monarchy is doing better than the Guardian.

And it's a fallacy that newer immigrant communities aren't patriotic. They are eager most of them to be British, the royal households are not the all white outposts they once were.

The newer Britons want in to the Britain they came here for. I say good for them, and shame on us if we don't see that and welcome it.

They're still leaving monarchy-free France for poor old anachronistic Blighty by the boatload.

They used to say the same thing about the striking troublesome miners.

The Queen Mother demurred. "I don't know," she said, "I've always found them very loyal."

I think it's all going to go much better than expected, including by yours truly.

^*point (not pint)

Fucking autocorrect.

The sole reason for wanting a virgin bride was so that everyone would trust that the heir belongs to the Prince and not some other dude. If Charles had been sure he wanted to marry Camilla, back when both were single, they could have agreed that she submit to a check to ensure she was not pregnant before the wedding, and that she would stay on contraception for a year after to make sure an early pregnancy wouldn't trigger gossip. I imagine that if he'd wanted to marry a European princess who was known not to be a virgin it could have been organised. Once the Pill was out there (early 60s) everything had changed. It would have been an easy argument to make.

The fact is that he was not sure when it mattered, and he was not prepared to argue to get her. He was probably a commitment-phobe for a very long time, which is unsurprising given his arm's-length relationship with his parents when a child. He was never fully committed to Diana, and having Camilla on the side was the easy way to run a relationship. He finally grew up in his 50s, it seems.

Camilla is a beard and looks like one. Why not just put a tiara on a box of hair?

Well anyway, the DL picked it earlier in the week when we said sending Kate out with Charles and Camilla was a sign the Queen was wanting to boost Cam's popularity.

R85, I recommend that you read this article, particularly the paragraph beginning "This is why my Foundation....".

I think you will find that Charles was quite prescient, in that planned communities are indeed incorporating his concepts [See: Florida, Celebration]. Look around your own locale; I'll bet you find shopping centers built with adjacent condominiums and recreational areas, all very walkable.

Yes, Charles has had his fair share of critics, usually architects---the same "visionaries" who brought the Nordstrom Central Park Tower monstrosity to NYC. He put the kibosh on a modern angles-and-glass building next to St. Paul's Cathedral; was that appropriate intervention or ignorant meddling? Opinions differ, but having been there several times, I'll side with Charles.

In Googling, I found an article that mocks his "10 Principles" (also in the different linked article provided below). I'll conclude by noting one of that author's (an architect) gibes:

Charles, as might be expected, wants architecture to be in harmony with nature---its "sacred geometry," as it were. The specific criticism? "Nature is not our friend."

That "modern" attitude is what should give pause, not the ideas of a thoughtful man of destiny trying to keep the new and modern from obliterating the old and historic.

R135. The leak of the tampon gate recording was strategic on the part of the palace. They wanted us to believe she and Charles have a passionate, lusty relationship.

R135, Perhaps.

But IF Camilla is Charles's beard, she is so in the same essential and profound way that Mary was to Freddie.

Apparently Charles was worried that Harry would use his upcoming tell-all book to bash Camilla for ruining his parents' marriage and his life.

If true, then perhaps this is one reason why the Queen has moved to give Camilla extra status?

Reply from Clarence House. Charles calls Camilla "my darling wife".

HMTQ wishing Camilla to be referred to as Queen, Charles in his message talking about "celebrating the service of The Queen, by whose example we will continue to be led in the years to come" . . .

They slowly prepare the people for having to say goodbye to HMTQ.

To go from royal concubine to Duchess to Queen is remarkable.

R143, we disagree.

Why not? They've been married for about 20 years now, and she has never done a single thing wrong or embarrassing. She's supported Charles, who seems to have been happier these past 20 years than he ever was before.

But...I see this as correcting a wrong. He should have been able to marry the person who loved in the beginning. The Queen can't make up for what she did to Margaret, but at least she can do this for her long suffering son, who grew up being emotionally bullied by his father.

Camilla was not in love with Charles during their first go around. She was crazy about Parker Bowles. As was every other aristocratic young woman in England. Even Anne had an affair with him. He was charming but ran around a lot. So he asks her to marry him and she was thrilled! He was quite the catch! I think Charles always saw her as the one who got away and he became obsessed with her. It is said that Camilla had a strong likeness to Charles's nanny.

Camilla's marriage broke down because of Parker Bowles's constant cheating. It was then that she turned to Charles and their affair began.

Being called Queen Camilla to King Charles is not "extra status," r140. Just like Queen Catherine won't be an "extra status" title 15-20 years from now. "Queen" (or "Queen Consort") is simply the correct term.

Good grief; the wives of Henry VIII were all termed "Queen" even after he beheaded two!

If Camilla goes first, Charles will become the "King Father".

No he will not, r148.

[quote]or have a brand-new crown commissioned for her own use?

Unlikely. She doesn't wear it besides once at the coronation.

It's almost certain she would wear the Queen mother's crown--but the big question is what will they do about the Koh-i-Noor, which is smack dab in the center of it? It still rankles the Indians the British have it, and in the British hands it's a symbol of imperialism. Could they rep[lace it with one of the bigger stones from the Cullinan?

I am curious whether Charles will bestow titles on Camilla's two children, Tom and Laura. It will be odd otherwise to have a queen with two children who are not ennobled.

No he will not, r151.

Yeah, I doubt Camilla’s kids get any titles. If this were 1902, Bertie would’ve done it at a moment’s notice. But those were different times. The optics are different now and Charles is all about slimming the family down, reducing their exposure, especially after Harry and Andy.

They will 100% be on the balcony after the coronation though.

Does this mean that Camilla gets her own little personal coronation as Queen consort?

[quote]They slowly prepare the people for having to say goodbye to HMTQ.

They are celebrating her Grand Jubilee. The Queen isn't going to die for at least another five years. Watch.

Prince Charles can probably pick up a suitable crown for his queen for £99

Partly r142. They mainly announced it because it's the Queen's Jubilee. I don't think it's a deliberate "preparation". "In the fullness of time" can also be a long time, there's nothing imminent-sounding about that.

R145, it's restoring order, not a personal issue - the wife of the King is the Queen.

I meant status to Camilla as an individual r140 - it's less easy for Harry or whoever to attack her if she's Queen or due to be Queen.

R159 is intended for r147, of course.

Will Harry be at the coronation, and will he be allowed to go on the balcony? I doubt it, so that will probably be very hard for him. He was resentful enough just not being allowed to wear his medals and military outfit for Philip's funeral.

One thing is for certain: Charles and William and Edward will wear their military outfits and medals for Elizabeth's funeral; Andrew and Harry will not. But they will be allowed to march, I expect, in the funeral cortege.

If at this point Harry slams Camilla in his book it will look much worse for him than it will for Camilla, since the Queen has now thrown her lot in with Camilla. But I would expect Harry will do it anyway because he is so unhinged.

Why wouldn't Harry be allowed on the balcony r161?

R115, will you PLEASE just shut the fuck up with your overwhelmingly oppressive insecurities about the decline in your position in the world? I mean, give me a break. The idea that a British person could ever hope to understand the meaning of the world equality, let alone use the word in favorably comparing your country to ours, is simply not something to be taken seriously. You would still be pillaging and plundering and foraging from indigenous peoples the globe over if *we* hadn't forced you to set those people free and dismantle your corrupt empire as a condition of saving your weak asses during the last world war. And speaking of which, the manner in which you dismantled that empire is quite literally at the root of nearly every intractable geopolitical problem the world is struggling with, from Palestine, to India and Pakistan, to Hong Kong.

You are hardly one to talk.

Just accept that no one cares what you or your rag doll Prime Minister think. The U.S. is the top dog amongst English speaking nations. We will take it from here. But thanks for the gift of the language.

Because he's no longer in good standing with the British royal family.

Once again, an American weighing in on the British Monarchy as if anyone gives a fuck what an American thinks about the British Monarchy.

I didn't say one single word about the monarchy in my post. Although it is completely pathetic, I will admit.

The irony of r164's reply when one considers the bizarre wealth inequality in the United States and how huge swathes of the world see the US as the evil empire.

R166, if you want to hear only British opinions, this is not the place to post yours.

[quote]"Princess Consort" would have sounded daft at Camilla's age.

I agree

I’m not British, R169.

Girls, [italic]girls, GIRLS!!![/italic]

Can't you see you're allowing national status to tear you apart?

You're [italic]both[/italic] from world empires that are just a shadow of what they once were geopolitically!

R171, the point being, anyone can have an opinion, and anyone can express it. How do you know that most of the anti BRF sentiment is coming from Americans? It probably isn’t.

[quote]The irony of [R164]'s reply when one considers the bizarre wealth inequality in the United States and how huge swathes of the world see the US as the evil empire.

Oh honey please. Huge swaths of the world can continue to see us as the evil empire. They also continue to rely on us as a defense umbrella that protects them from invasion by the likes of your countrymen. If you had the ability to invade anyone's country, that is.

You would gladly trade places with us and you know it.

[quote]Breaking News: Queen Camilla on the cards

On the cards

On the deck of dirty playing cards with pix of her wrinkled old tits hanging down

R171:

Sorry, Australia.

My bad.

R173, the poster you are talking to is in Sydney, Australia. Chalk it up to a case of Stockholm Syndrome.

Get off your high horse, R111. Modern day America proves the United States has been a success at two things: buying military hardware and unfettered capitalism. You really don't want to start the argument about superiority. Different nations have different models for a head of state. There is no worship or praise in the UK for the monarchy, just a prevailing sentiment that they provide a focal point in the life and work of the nation effectively. Different countries can be different from America without being inferior to it. You really are such a cliche.

I don’t know, R173 - when I see a reference to “saving your asses during the war” or “if not for the USA you’d all be speaking German” I have a pretty good idea that the poster is American.

It’s like you guys have a script - when you are all out of cogent arguments you bring up WW2.

You (plural) might want to let it go, as it’s both historically inaccurate and happened rather a long time ago.

But then what else would you have?

And not for nothing, who held the Axis at bay until America deigned to show up?

R111 as an American, it's always hilarious to me how we claim we don't do monarchies. We love building up dynasties. It's been how many DECADES since a Kennedy was relevant?

R179, I’m American and I never once brought that up or posted it. My ONLY point is that we all have a right to our opinions, and we all have a right to post it on DL. America, British, whatever.

Off topic, but Andrew Parker Bowles and Camilla were married in a Roman Catholic ceremony in 1973. I wonder if APB has ever sought an annulment of their marriage from the RC Church.

Would a RC annulment be recognized by the COE, thus cleaning up the canonical problem of Camilla's first marriage and making Charles and Camilla a nicely clean couple from the viewpoint of the COE as they reign as king and queen consort?

As I recall C and C received an Anglican blessing upon their marriage but the actual marriage could not be canonically conducted by COE clergy and was performed in a registry office.

It's interesting how she waited till Philip was six feet under before announcing this.

Addendum to R183 [quote] but the actual marriage could not be canonically conducted by COE clergy

due to Camilla's divorce.

They knew Charles and Camilla were fucking around and now the queen is basically saying she has gotten over that. Isn't she the leader of their faith, too? What a disgrace.

C&C elected not to seek marriage in the Church even though it has been an option since 2002.

"The Church of England teaches that marriage is for life. It also recognizes that some marriages sadly do fail and, if this should happen, it seeks to be available for all involved. The Church accepts that, in exceptional circumstances, a divorced person may marry again in church during the lifetime of a former spouse.

Some priests may be willing to take such a marriage, others may not be prepared to do so, on grounds of conscience, and may not allow the use of their church either. The law of the land permits them this choice."

Still sharp at 95.

Charles and Camilla seem to have been REWARDED for their adultery.

R179, you're only trying to shut down that line of argument because it's a fatal response to virtually all of your unfounded criticisms. Your empire was rife with equality; we forced you to dismantle it after the war.

It only hurts because it's true.

Yeah, that wasn't nobility, that was strategic self interest.

Jesus, like Churchill said: always count on America to do the right thing, after it's tried everything else.

Really, the fiction you guys need to wrap yourselves in. If in pursuit of your self-interest you also saved the world, that was a happy coincidence.

R190. What did America do to force the UK to dismantle its post-war empire ?

Queen Victoria wanted her eldest son to take the name of King Albert after she died but he didn't. Once this Queen is dead, Charles can call his wife anything he wants. The wife of the King is always the Queen no matter what the people think of her. Diana divorced Charles and she was never going to be queen even if she didn't die.

Thanks, Rose. What your thoughts on breathing?

Are you for real, r154?

Yeah, I'd like to know, too, r190.

The Queen Consort is crowned in a separate part of the Coronation ceremony, after the King is done and dusted.

I'd like Charles to crown Camilla like Napoleon did with Josephine.

Regarding coronation day and tiaras, Camilla has one daughter and one daughter-in-law, right? The daughter could wear Camilla’s ‘Cubbitt’ family tiara, and the daughter-in-law could wear the vintage synthetic ruby tiara that Charles gifted to Camilla that she’s only worn as a necklace. Other than coronation day, that’s probably the only occasion they’ll have to wear a tiara to.

Princess Beatrice could wear the fringe tiara she was loaned for her wedding, and Eugenie could wear the emeralds.

Sarah Duchess of York, in the minute chance she’s invited, could wear her bridal tiara. Else, assuming she’s not invited then perhaps Beatrice would wear her mother’s.

Zara Tindal could wear one of her Princess Anne’s, perhaps the Greek Key that she wore for her wedding. Anne also has the aquamarine pine cone tiara and her Festoon tiara. Zara would probably also proudly be wearing her MBE medal pinned to her breast.

Lady Louise Mountbatten, well I think she would wear the smallest of her mother the Countess of Wessex tiaras, which I guess is the one with the single aquamarine in the center.

Lady Sarah Chatto might borrow one from the royal collection that was associated with her mother. Maybe one of Queen Mary’s bandeaus that Margaret wore in the 1960s with the large sapphire. Or, the Papyrus Motif tiara that her former sister-in-law wore to her wedding, and which has been seen recently on Catherine.

I assume Meghan won’t be invited so forget about that modest diamond tiara she wore to her wedding.

As long as Louise doesn't wear that abominable tiara her mother wore for her wedding with Edward, I'm fine with pretty much every headgear she might get to wear.

On Coronation Day, Meghan and Harry can sit on their thrones in Montecito and watch on television.

[quote] as surely that can only be one 'Her Majesty' at any one time?

Not correct. The late Queen Mother was HM Queen Elizabeth the QM, and, of course her daughter was, and remains, HM Queen Elizabeth II.

Supposedly they spoke daily. The servant would place the call, saying “your majesty, her majesty”

A woman is usually Her Majesty on account of her marriage to a king. Wives get the feminine equivalent of the title their husband holds. It is basically a very high end Mrs. So if you are widowed, you are still a Mrs.

[quote]Your empire was rife with equality

Find one that wasn't.

BTW, how's that slaveholding working out for ya?

Thank you for the clarification, R187.

LOL @r164. America can’t even deal with Putin, and you elected a fat orange moron. Yes, you’re exactly who the world turns to as an example.

R164 is a cliche. Ignore it.

I can't wait to see Prince William having to bow to his step mother the Queen.

William will be fine with it. He’s part of the royal machine, he knows what’s the right thing to do and when. It’s nitwit Harry that might make a commotion about it.

And the only reason for the widow of George VI to be styled as “Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother” was because there was now another Queen Elizabeth - her daughter.

Within the Royal households, QE2 was referred to as “The Queen” and her mother as “Queen Elizabeth”.

So what dirt will Harry dish up to make his book worth buying? It won't be about David and Wallis and their Nazi sympathies will it?

It has a nice ring to it OP.

I don't see why not; with all the rubbish this woman has probably had to put up with over the years — she certainly deserves it. Although I suspect the HM the Queen has her reasons; there is the possibility that she sees Camilla as the strong arm in the Firm, with enough strength of character and intelligence to withstand any threats to the institution.

“My empire”, R190? Did someone make me Emperor? I’m always the last to know, damnit!

I think she would've been perfectly fine with being Duchess of Cornwall her entire life despite her husband being king. She doesn't strike me as someone who gives much of a fuck about titles.

I guess she's a hoot with lots of sarcastic one-liners.

I’ve said this before but it bears repeating. I know two people who have met Camilla socially (I.e. not at a thing that would appear in the Court Circular). They don’t know each other. Both said pretty much the same thing when I asked about her - warm, earthy, countrywoman not city, loves a joke especially a double entendre, doesn’t mind a drink or two and was not at all grand.

Apart from the titles, houses and jewels etc, I assume!

R210, you may be right but if Harry makes a big deal out of it, as Sussex spokepersons already are, referring to Camilla as his mistress, Harry's goose is cooked. That may be the thing for which Charles won't forgive him. And William will make sure his father's wishes carry into his reign as well. Catherine won't help Harry out in this case as it involves Camilla. Watch Meghan screw this up.

R186, what is wrong with you? They've been married 17 years. She is loved by the royal family and the Queen. She has been Charles' support since they married and handled the charity work well. She's gotten close to HM as well. She has proven herself worthy. My understanding is that she will automatically become Queen Consort when he takes the throne unless the law is changed. If William is fine with it, why should you care?

Who cares? They are both too old to give a shit.

Sarah Chatto and Camilla's daughters have neither the need nor the right to wear tiaras to the coronation as a mark of rank, because they don't have tank any more than Kate's mother and sister do. Non peers do have them, but Camilla's daughters wearing them to this would be seen as the height of hubris. If this is a formal coronation in the old mold, it is the ladies carrying the royal trains who will require that kind of bling, and wives and daughters of the peers of the realm. The Duchesses of Norfolk and Northumberland and such will wear them, but not the likes of Camilla's daughters or Anne's daughter, or Peter Phillips' daughters. They have no titles and would look absurd

Chatto probably wouldn't even want to. She's quite modest in dress.

The Spencer's will naturally not be present

But all the other peers with their ducal coroners, that's who will be lit up like Christmas trees.

And, er, of course . . . The new Princess of Wales. What do we suppose she'll wear that memorable day?

The Cambridge Lover's Knot might strike a wrong note given its association with Diana.

The York girls, Sophie, Lady Louise, yes.

Because, R218, people like R186 have been clinging on to Diana who has been dead for 25 years, and that’s all that they have.

They don’t realise that life is messy, people make mistakes, not everything works out and especially that a central tenet of Christianity is forgiveness (I’m an atheist but I do remember) which HM obviously understands.

Not directed at you R218, obviously, but at the Diana obsessives still banging on about someone who has been dead for a quarter of a century.

This whole Queen-is-head-of-the-church as some kind of disgrace is bosh. The God of Wrath, hell and damnation is for puritans. She believes devoutly. The basis of Christianity is love: of God, of others, and striving to live in the spirit of forgiveness and mercy. So as head of the church, a mother and a woman, if she's reconciled to the human sins and failings of her son and his wife [italic]and[/italic] has seen over close to twenty-years a solid, loving marriage that dignifies and sustains the participants, it seems consistent with the purpose of the church she should be reconciled to it. As Christian, to be otherwise, would be a failing in itself.

I second that R222

And I say that as somebody who cuts Diana a ton of slack. She is neither all victim nor all villain and the hostility and disrespect shown to this monumental figure bugs me often. But Camilla's earned her place and I gather is not a bad sort. And whether she is or she isn't, I would guess from the Queen's perspective on faith, she's worthy of the Queen's protection as wife and future consort.

Well well well. Camilla who has been in league with Charles ever since his wedding to rid the world of Diana after providing the kingdom with the necessary royal drippings has finally won and will be crowned Queen of England.

one doesn’t need a tank to wear a tiara. If the dress code calls for one and the lady has access to one, she may wear it.

rank, not tank

[quote] And, er, of course . . . The new Princess of Wales. What do we suppose she'll wear that memorable day? The Cambridge Lover's Knot might strike a wrong note given its association with Diana.

If you're referring to Catherine, it is unlikely she will be made Princess of Wales until after Charles's coronation.

The heir apparent is not automatically Prince of Wales, so when Elizabeth II dies and Charles automatically becomes King, William automatically becomes Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay (two titles always given to the heir apparent of the living monarch) as well as Duke of Cambridge. But the title of Prince of Wales will disappear until Charles decides to bestow it on to him, and that will likely not happen until after the coronation. There will probably be a formal investiture ceremony at Caernarfon Castle as there was for Charles in 1969, only this time BOTH William and Catherine will be invested with new titles by the monarch.

Kate will be wearing the Vladimir tiara or the Girls Of Great Britain And Ireland one.

R225 there hasn’t been a Queen of England since Elizabeth I. 500 years ago.

You’re obviously an American - what makes you think that your opinion regarding the wife of the next British head of state matters?

It doesn’t - I’m sure that that is a difficult concept to understand. But you keep on worshiping at the shrine of someone who died in Nineteen Fucking Ninety Seven! The rest of us have moved on.

Tiara troll are you there? I thought that Ladies of the Royal house (and gents for that matter) wore coronets at the coronation, crowning themselves at the moment when the Monarch is crowned?

If they hold a title with a coronet the women wear both. Coronets are not worn until the sovereign is crowned. Men are bare headed. Women wear tiaras.

As for who wears tiaras at the coronation: several of them already worn by the Queen will probably be personally willed to living female members of the royal family when the Queen dies because she personally owns some of them. I am fairly cetrain she will will some of them to the crown outright (to cover death duties as well as to benefit the nation), but she has enough that she can individually will some of her tiaras not just to Camilla and Kate, but also Anne (her only daughter), Sophie (her beloved daughter-in-law), and Beatrice and Eugenie (since they are both royal and she adores them). I am not sure if Louise will get her own tiara, although she may (depending on whether she decides this year or not to accept the title of princess); Zara almost certainly will not, since she only needs them for coronation and can borrow one of her mother's for that.

For example, she personally owns the Fringe Tiara she wore on her wedding day, and that she lent to Anne to wear on her wedding day and then Beatrice to wear on hers. That will probably go to one of them.

I would guess the queen will will the grandest of her personally owned tiaras, the Grand Duchess Vladimir Tiara (which is worn with drop pearls, or the Cambridge Emeralds, or without either), either to the crown jewels (so as to be worn by the succeeding Queens) or to Camilla outright, since it is grander and more spectacular than any other tiara in the UK when it is worn with the emeralds. It should be worn by whoever is Queen Consort of Queen Regnant.

The Girls of Great Britain and Ireland Tiara is also owned personally by the Queen, and is her other favorite (alongside the Grand Duchess Vladimir). She likes it not only for its sentimental attachment (children of the United kingdom collected money to pay for it for the wedding of Queen Mary), but also because it is apparently very comfortable. She might will it to the crown jewels or to Camilla; she might also will it to Anne or Sophie.

Camilla will likely be given the Greville Tiara outright since she wears it so often and it goes well with her hair.

* "It should be worn by whoever is Queen Consort of Queen Regnant" should read "It should be worn by whoever is Queen Consort or Queen Regnant.

Watch the men and women in the congregation from about 1:40 to 3:00. The coronets come on once she's crowned and takes the throne for the homage.

These Diana obsessed folks need to give up the ghost.

Is there any precedent for the monarch breaking up the private collection of jewels? Or is R233 just speculating?

That's hilarious, r236.

As if being queen were simply a matter of sheer fabulousness.

The Queen's attitude about Camilla seems more practical vs. "Christian forgiveness" as head of church. That church is still very fire and brimstone, IMO.

When Charles becomes King, Camilla will automatically as a matter of law become Queen no matter what they call her, Princess Consort, Duchess of Duke Street, whatever. This is not a letters-patent issue for the Palace. Only an act of Parliament could deprive Camilla, and that is never going to happen not least because of the precedent it would set. The Queen is signaling to her people that she wants them to support Chaz and Cammie when she (the Queen) is no more: let's not forget that the Queen is the most popular institution in the UK, perhaps just after the NHS, so she is projecting for her son's sake.

She can’t be called the Queen Dowager if she survives Charles. That title is reserved for the widowed mother of the current King.

If, if, she survives Charles, Parliament will vote her the title of Queen Mother and a grand allowance in £ for her services to Gin and The Monarchy and the PM will advise the new King graciously to grant his assent along with another hundred thousand options on Gordon's stock. The middle class Parker Bowles kids must be amazed that their mom is a Princess about to be a Queen.

If he dies before her she will be Queen Camilla - nothing new there.

When George VI died there were three queens:

Queen Mary (his mother) Queen Elizabeth (his widow) The Queen (his daughter)

It’s really not that difficult.

[quote] If he dies before her she will be Queen Camilla - nothing new there.

If he dies as PoW and Cammie survives, he will only be known as Duchess of Cornhole, not Princess of Whales.

You’re right (kind of, R244]. I should have said “if he dies as king before her she will be…”.

I’ll leave your incredibly sophisticated wit (Cornhole, Whales etc) uncommented upon.

Camilla will never be Queen Mother, period. That title only existed for one person in the UK, the widow of George VI, and it was only because she and her daughter had the same name , and it would have been too confusing had she as widow been referred to in the news as "HM Queen Elizabeth" because people would have thought, "Which one?" It had always been the case before that if a queen outlived her husband (like Queen Adelaide, Queen Alexandra, Queen Mary" they became known as "HM Queen [First name]" while the new queen regnant or queen consort was known as "HM the Queen." So they had to invent a one-time title for the former Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon as "HM the Queen Mother."

Camilla will be known as "HM the Queen" when Charles takes the throne and then "HM Queen Camilla" if she outlives him.

R246 is obviously a part of the White House Protocol Department

[quote] They've been married for about 20 years now, and [Camilla] has never done a single thing wrong or embarrassing.

Nor, it should be pointed out, did she do a single thing wrong or embarrassing during their previous affair (if you exclude taking part in it at all). When Charles mentions "the support" of his "darling wife" he is echoing Edward VIII's most famous utterance, "...without the help and support of the woman I love."

Those who think Charles is gay and Camilla is a beard - why on earth would Diana play into that game by highlighting their affair? Diana was dumb, but she was savvy enough to fire Charles's valet for "being too close to him" right at the start. She could have outed him if he was playing around with men -- and don't think she would have hesitated.

William and Kate will be fine bowing to Camilla. William knew his mother was no angel. This is the one area where I do feel sorry for Harry: he lost her at the age where every little boy thinks his mother is a shining princess, only in his case the rest of the world was backing up his view. Nobody in the family would have wanted to set him to rights in the circumstances.

[quote]And last, but not least, you Yanks were insane for Diana and when the Queen visited

You lost me at You Yanks. No one talks like in America. Typical British antiquated knowledge of America.

Margaret is the only person who would have had trouble bowing to Camilla, because she had this weird obsession that people who were born royal were superior who were made royal. She apparently thought she (who was born HRH) was not only superior to her mother, which had been born only Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, but even her grandmother Queen Mary, who had been born only Her Serene Highness Princess May of Teck. (HSH is a step down from HRH.)

But she would have bowed down to her anyway.

William, Kate, and even Harry will have no trouble bowing down to Camilla.

We have people in America that worship celebrities and reality TV personalities, including people like Trump. We call them Deplorables. What do you call those who worship the Monarchy? 😂

Citizens of a constitutional monarchy, R251. If it came to a choice between Trump and - well, pretty much anyone, there’s really no contest.

But back to you and your sophisticated laughing emoji.

William would be advised to following and adjust precedent set when (1) Augusta was widowed by Frederick, Prince of Wales, with her father-in-law George II being succeeded by her son, George III, and (2) Marina widowed by the Duke of Kent. The logical adjustments here will be made because she is William's father's widow, not his mother, and she has not publicly used her primary title of "Princess of Wales, although that's what she has been in fact since her marriage to Charles).

On the other hand, when Marina's son, the Duke of Kent, married, Elizabeth allowed Marina to become "HRH Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent" rather than "HRH The Dowager Duchess of Kent."

If Charles were to die before he became king, Camilla would be styled

"HRH The Dowager Duchess of Cambridge" if William were being pissy.

"HRH Camilla The Dowager Duchess of Cambridge" if William were being less pissy, or

"HRH Princess Camilla, Duchess of Cambridge" if he were being kind and following Charles' wishes.

There is no "Dowager Princess of Wales," and no one would bother touching that enormous wasp nest anyway.

And R246 is, of course, correct, if Charles and Camilla live to see his succession.

William and Kate would take the Cambridge titles the moment Charles died, naturally, as well as the Dukedom of Edinburgh, Earldom of Merioneth and Barony of Greenwich, unless Elizabeth were to grant Edinburgh (finally) to Edward before she died. Everyone's acted like Charles has the authority at the moment as senior royal male, but he does not.

This obsession of who's married to who, with what titles is exhausting. Don't you silly British queens have something better to do with your time?

R120, the documentary where Diana's ignorance was said to be encyclopaedic is The Royal House of Windsor, S1 Ep 5, "Fire, Feud and Fury". (The same guy claimed her sole academic award had been for keeping a guinea pig.)

Unlike you, R254, who scrolled through 253 responses on a thread about the possible title of the wife of the heir to the British throne, to deliver your pithy put-down.

You obviously have nothing better to do with your time.

And don’t assume that the contributors to these threads are all “silly British queens”. Silly American queens such as yourself betray your origins with your spelling and grammar.

[quote]The Cambridge Lover's Knot might strike a wrong note given its association with Diana.

Mummy should get one of the top tiaras the day of the coronation, but I would be very happy with the Cambridge Lovers' Knot, thank you. I would be too cute for anyone to take offence at.

Kate has already worn the Cambridge Lover's Knot Tiara multiple times, and she will likely continue to do so until she becomes Queen.

Camilla will never, ever want to wear it because it was so associated with Diana. But Kate has no trouble being compared to Diana.

[quote]American queens such as yourself betray your origins with your spelling and grammar.

It's not a betrayal, it's called a revolution. Didn't you get the memo Dear?

God Save Her Majesty The Queen

Or their use of the tired “Dear”, R259. Go pour yourself another glass from your box of wine. Dear.

I love you all! Only DL can host a cat fight over titles and tiaras. You made my Sunday night.

R258, I think the earlier poster meant that Camilla might regard seeing the tiara in the audience as a bit of a Banquo's Ghost at the feast.

R236. Is that painting by the sane guy who made the Jesus anointing Trump picture? The style and level of fantasy are similar.

Diana is somehow the same age as her sons, and Harry and William are beaming in each other’s presence. Not surprisingly , none of the spouses or partners are in the picture (especially Meghan and Dod).

[quote]unless Elizabeth were to grant Edinburgh (finally) to Edward before she died.

She can't grant the Edinburgh dukedom to Edward or anyone else during her lifetime. It's now Charles's title, he inherited it as Philip's eldest son. And he can't do anything with it either, until his mother dies and he becomes King, because that's when that title "merges" with the crown and becomes available again.

The Queen will not be "willing" or granting any of her personal tiaras to Camilla, Sophie, or any other married-in. She might will them to one of her four children, including her sons, who will then allow their wives to wear what they've inherited.

It's more likely that most of QEII's personally-owned tiaras as well as most of her substantial jewels will be made part of a Royal Collection and inherited by Charles and other subsequent monarchs. Some of her personal jewelry, such as her wedding bracelet (a gift from Philip) and some brooches and earrings might be left to her daughter and granddaughters.

Her Majesty lent Philip's wedding bracelet to Catherine to wear to a state dinner in 2015 and since then Catherine has worn it frequently. Rumors vary as to whether it is on permanent loan to her, it was outright gifted to her or whether it will be bequeathed to her.

It's an exquisite piece with a fascinating history (Romanov diamonds!) and one of HM's very favorites. There was surprise when Catherine began wearing it.

The monarchy is literally the only thing unique and interesting about the UK. Without the royals, you guys would just be a small and boring version of America.

For fuck’s sake R268 - is that satire or are you “literally” that stupid?

[quote]The Queen will not be "willing" or granting any of her personal tiaras to Camilla, Sophie, or any other married-in. She might will them to one of her four children, including her sons, who will then

wear them with their loveliest gowns, and will each exclaim into the mirror, "Oh my dear! You really are quite the prettiest princess in the entire kingdom, you know!"

R248, doesn't William only have to bow to her when Charles is present? And when Charles isn't, she has to bow to him?

My understanding is that in recent years the royal family now only bow or curtsy to the queen, instead of to whomever ranks higher than them in the royal pecking order. Presumably they will bow/curtsy to both the king and queen in the new reign.

Assuming that Charles doesn’t get rid of the obeisances once he’s monarch - they will all bow to both the King and Queen.

That’s how it has always been - most people are just used to having a female monarch for all of their lives.

R241 is wrong. Elizabeth Woodville outlived Edward IV and since her precious boys disappeared, she was still called the Dowager Queen during Henry VII.

Being the mother of the heir is irrelevant to being a dowager. Just means you were married to a titled man and he died.

[quote]they will all bow to both the King and Queen

And you still want that? Americans bow down to no one. At leas in America you can give the President the middle finger.

[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.]

What would happen if someone being introduced to the President and just stuck their middle finger up at him, r275? Say a visiting dignitary or member of the public who was about to be honoured by the President in some way?

Americans bow and curtsy to the Queen and other royals when they're in the UK and at an official event with them. They love doing it too - all that tradition.

You can give the Queen or the prime minister or anyone the middle finger if they're driving around in a motorcade. At least royal or prime ministerial motorcades in the UK aren't huge, disruptive events designed as a Rambo-like show of power.

R3275 calm your tits. We have a political party that tried to install an orange anus as dictator for life and we basically invented modern celebrity worship culture.

At least my friends in London get lots of bank holidays.

I'm kind of surprised at the fact that Dan Wootton is basically swallowing Diana's own martyr narrative but I give him kudos for not toeing the royal line, which would be the easiest thing in his job.

Also, Diana didn't have "subjects".

R275 Yes yes yes Americans bow to no-one American Exceptionalism blah blah blah etc.

Guess what you parochial tool - nobody is required to bow or curtsy to The Queen , however, as communicated by the Royal household “when one is offered it is appreciated”.

So the Queen’s subjects aren’t even expected to - nobody gives a fuck about who Americans do or don’t bow to. Get over yourself - nobody cares.

[quote]Americans bow and curtsy to the Queen and other royals when they're in the UK

Nope, not everyone, It's a sign of subjugation not just courtesy.

You self hating queens who want to show you are less than a real queen are nauseating. You call it courtesy, psychiatry call it low self esteem.

Charles and Camilla were fucking each other from the beginning of their marriages to other people. And one of the people was a very naive young woman who thought when you married a man he was your husband who swears before God he will be faithful to you. Of course Diana was to learn at far too young an age that life is horribly cruel and laughs in your face and an oath before God has as much meaning as the check is in the mail.

This shabby pathetic couple will practically in a few years be King and Queen of England but might as well be tired old actors touring in a bus and truck company of I Do! I Do!

R282 Nailed it.

No excitement there with those two old bags. Just look at this thread, it's all about if he dies first or she dies then..... The outside world really doesn't care Camilla and Charles are a bore. You can hate on Diana all you want but she single handily brought glamor and global appeal back the the Royal Family. The only saving grace are her two sons to be honest.

Of course the KKKaftan queen pour e-laurels over whore Camilla and lazy waity Katie while pretending they don't know which royal is *truly* the next Diana. That lot loves their meaningless grasps at relevancy.

Hi Meghan @ R284. How are you? Still eager working on your ass getting fatter and fatter?

We don't want glamour and "global appeal" for the royal family, r283. They're not celebrities, they are public servants. We want them to perform their duties, stand as symbols for the nation, and represent our country abroad in its foreign relations. This is particularly true of the monarch, who is head of state, which is a constitutional role, not a public celebrity role.

Oh, and r283 in the only country where the royal family matters, i.e. the United Kingdom, we do not give a shit about that moron, Diana's second son, especially since he's shown that he does not give a shit about us.

R282 and 283. The worshippers of Saint Diana are impervious to facts so it’s really useless responding. Diana was an enthusiastic adulteress with married men , and she would be in her 60s now. Therefore, if she were alive today she would be every bit as much a filthy old bag adulteress who laughs in the face of vows to god etc.

Dimwit R288 who is slobbering with anticipation at Camilla's winning first prize in Best in Show who along with the entire royal family took a very insecure mentally unstable young woman conspired against her using her as nothing more than a hired hand to produce crotch fruit and emotionally threw her away doesn't seem to realize she was having a slow mental breakdown in front of the entire world and was a very sick woman acting in terrible ways despite her good heart and ultimate bravery. The spectacle of inbred rednecks lumbering about in medals and jewels in museum picture palaces seems to have him all teary at the utter slovenliness of it all.

And speaking of antiquated notions of how ignorant one population is of the others, curtsying is no longer either demanded or routinely done in Britain. At this point in time, the word "subjugation" is ludicrous. It's now a courtesy, and, no You Yanks aren't supposed to do so in the UK unless you feel like trying it on as spectacle.

I would not be surprised if the Cambridges, when they take over, abolish it as a custom.

You Monarchy Hysterics need to chill and get lives and worry more about the handful of multi billionaires who control most of the world's wealth now, the complete collapse of personal privacy, the bitter cancel culture, etc.

Believe us, the monarchy is benign by comparison and affords us priceless relief and fun.

Jesus. Anyone would think they're still putting heads on pikes over Tower Bridge.

Relax. Enjoy the show. If there's one thing we Brits do well, it's theatre.

Team R254. The Burke's Peerage choreography and general Aunt Pittypat of it all, she's 74 years old. She won't be called anything for long.

I can absolutely see the fascination with the detail but how do you some of you feel such an obvious and intense need to post so emphatically, as if your expert talking head live shot on Sky News is coming up next? You embarrass yourselves.

R256 has sounded...

“Thank God that shit’s been decided. I need a drink and a cigarette!”

R253 - "If Charles were to die before he became king, Camilla would be styled

"HRH The Dowager Duchess of Cambridge" if William were being pissy.

"HRH Camilla The Dowager Duchess of Cambridge" if William were being less pissy, or

"HRH Princess Camilla, Duchess of Cambridge" if he were being kind and following Charles' wishes".

Camilla is the Duchess of Cornwall. William's wife Kate is the Duchess of Cambridge. Why would Camilla be the Duchess of Cambridge?

Thank you for clearing that up, R265. The confidence with which people can talk about matters of which they are plainly ignorant is alarming. Dunning-Kruger?

I don't think any of the other royals "congratulated" or noted the date, either, except for the Cambridges retweeting her message on their social media, probably because William is next in line after Charles.

The response of the media outlets are, at least initially, judiciously cautious.

But the overwhelming response in comments is negative.

The undoing of the monarchy will be Charles' stubborn pride and refusal to accept the truth: he and Camilla are unwanted by most of the populace, and the smart thing to do is let the Cambridges take over.

Obviously, this is off the table, and Charles is putting himself and his ego first.

The monarchy will pay the price.

A short clip of Dame Edna with Charles and Camilla.

Would anyone dare try something like this with the Queen? I don't think so.

R275 - No, you just live with a Supreme Court who gave corporations the rights of individuals.

You fuckers are so enslaved it isn't funny. You bow down to the highest level of income inequality in the developed world. You bow down to a tax system rigged in favour of the rich. You bow down to banks charging you fees for transactions that cost them nothing, you aren't protected from credit card usury, and you bow down to a health care system that is the joke of the developed world, as well.

There's all kinds of bondage, mate. You comfort yourself by sticking two fingers up to a motorcade. Let us all know how that changes your basic servitude over the coming decades.

Cheers.

R295, abandoning the hereditary principle would be just as damaging to the institution as a short and unloved reign for King Charles. Once you allow matters like current public opinion to have an effect on ancient ways of doing things - like succession - the institution will crumble under the weight of those contradictions. Also, such a move would tell the monarchy's opponents that there's blood in the water: that the Windsors are conscious that they can no longer survive on Elizabeth II's personal popularity.

I happen not to believe that the monarchy will last for more than another couple of decades in any case.

R296 is hilarious. Camilla actually looks slightly uneasy though. They both must sit there and inside think "Oh, fuck...."

I agree, Charles and Camilla are not overly loved. That is why this was done now. The matter is settled. There's time for people to get used to the title, now they're used to her. There will be a quiet campaign to warm her up even further. It will likely work. They are two old people. They'll be accepted by most and tolerated by almost all the rest. They've been saying the monarchy won't last for much longer for a hundred years. It does. Of course it is viewed differently but it's also part of the national furniture.

Some observations on Camilla by Harry Mount at The Telegraph. In my view, Harry Mount is what Julian Fellowes pretends to be.

"These days, she certainly would have gone to university – she was and remains an avid reader. But, in those days, the expectation was that she should become a debutante, which she did, and find a suitable husband. She also followed the classic pursuits of the rural gentry – with combined worship of the two upper-class deities, horses and dogs."

"For that is what you’re struck by when you meet her: her warm, gossipy, friendly, jokey manner. She fights off any deference and, in a conspiratorial way, puts you at your ease.

As so often in The Crown, the dramatised TV version is a million miles from the truth. In the series, Camilla was portrayed as a kind of wicked character who got a twisted kick out of tormenting Diana. But that just isn’t right. Yes, she was caught up in the most famous royal scandal in living memory. But, as a person, there is no disingenuous scheming in her; no eye to the main chance; no carefully concealed plan to get her greedy mitts on the crown."

"She has bucket loads of a particular charm cocktail that is popular among the more sophisticated upper classes. It is a combination of diffidence, curiosity, humour, raffishness, teasing and self-deprecation. The only offence is to take offence. You can be as rude as you like – as long as you’re funny."

"She asks questions, flatters you and never pulls up the drawbridge by using her royal power. She is grand by being ungrand. She demands no special treatment when you’re chatting to her. She is, in many ways, the product of her generation: born into the conventional, upper-class world of post-war Britain and set free by the social revolution of the 1960s."

Considering how long he's waited, how brief his reign will be & that he's basically just a bridge between QEII & William, throw Chuck a bone by making Camilla a Queen. Doesn't seem so unreasonable

The queen title is so binary. There should be other options. A change they could make is to have an asterisk next to the word queen. It wouldn’t lead to any explanation, it would just be an asterisk. That could be a sufficient way to put a black mark on her and differentiate her from other queens.

I have been thinking about changing my pronoun to One.

Philip’s mother Princess Alice had a beautiful aquamarine and diamond tiara, they she picked apart it give diamonds to Philip. Presumably what was left over funded her charity order of nuns, or she used it to give to stones to her four daughters.

The Koh-I-Noor diamond can be worn on Queen Mary’s crown, and Queen Alexandra’s crown. It doesn’t have to stay on Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother’s crown. Mary and Alexandra’s crowns are more delicate looking, Queen Elizabeth TQM’s crown has an unappealing boxy shape (which didn’t suit her boxy shaped head)

Queen Alexandra’s crown, currently set with glass. It would be easy to swap out the diamonds from Queen Mary or Queen Elizabeth’s crowns.

Give Camilla the grandest of these crowns, she can wear them.

When the time comes, Kate, on the other hand, should wear a less imposing crown. A crown too grand may look stupid on her.

Kate would need something more delicate, yes. I think a large crown would look awkward on her fine features.

[quote]Her Majesty lent Philip's wedding bracelet to Catherine to wear to a state dinner in 2015 and since then Catherine has worn it frequently. Rumors vary as to whether it is on permanent loan to her, it was outright gifted to her or whether it will be bequeathed to her.

The Queen will not bequeath or gift any important jewelry, such as her wedding day bracelet, directly to Catherine or any other in-law. She may gift it to William, for use by his wife and eventually by his heir's wife (or his daughter Charlotte).

Important, historical jewels will stay in the family, with blood family members. Otherwise, they leave the family in event of a divorce.

The Crown of Queen Adelaide might be a nice choice for Kate, it's certainly less grand than the other consort crowns generally known.

I'm not on disagreement with some of the comments above. Abandoning the hereditary principle is dangerous. But in this particular case, it's up against other dangers. There are "loopholes" for lack of a better word, in this particular case. His age, for one thing. If TQ lives to be 100, no one would scream popularity polls if a nearly 80 year old man stepped aside in gracious acknowledgement of the obvious. In Holland, Belgium, and Spain, still vigorous monar has stepped aside to let middle-aged sons take over, without damage.

The Windsors are in a no-win situation. They have a choice between going with hereditary principle or acknowledging that they know it's a poor choice and bending the principle this once.

The latter, I think, is feasible if handled properly at the right time. A delay past the Platinum Jubilee, let the dust settle, see how likely it looks that TQ is hanging on, and if she does, simply admit the age issue and do what will be called the sensible thing.

Of course, if she wakes up dead next week, it's too late and Charles will finish off the monarchy with a spectacularly uninspiring reign over which the shadows of his first wife and younger son will hang like Banquo's ghost at the table.

The Queen has made a series of fatal errors in the last few years. I think addressing the Camilla issue just now is one of them.

She should have just let it lie. The response of the UK public to the news and Charles' reoky about his darling wife, and the news of the beloved Queen Mother's consort crown on Camilla's head do not bode well.

Charles is still putting Camilla above the welfare of the monarchy, oblivious to the chasm at his feet.

It's fascinating to watch.

It wasn't Diana or Harry or Andrew who has been the weak link all along: it's Charles, it always has been. I think Philip knew that.

The Charles Should Never Be King troll with their thesis-length diatribes is back ... *yawn*

Brave of Dan Wootton at r276 to step away from his usually strong support of all things Royal to detail his hesitation at accepting this latest pronouncement, re Camilla's future status. He's an admitted "Dianamaniac" and is uneasy re anything that puts Camilla in spot originally meant for his idol.

But his statement that Diana would be "horrified" at these current events, and would shudder if Camilla became Queen is off the mark. We have no idea what Diana would think about this, 25 years beyond her divorce and early death. We don't know how her relationship with her ex (Charles) would have developed over time, and subsequently how her relations with Camilla might have turned out. There were many indications she was getting along much better with Charles, in the weeks leading up to her demise.

She may very well, by this point in time, have been perfectly accepting of Camilla as future Queen Consort.

Jesus, R311, give it up. Or find the right Reddit.

Tiaras galore.

Personally I disagree Kate needs a more modest sized crown. She's got a pretty big head and usually big hair. Plus her features are quite big and blunt. (Not a Megaloopdeloopdyloon, I'm team Kate.) I'd argue she would look odd with something delicate. The Cambridge lover's knot is not a half measure.... Whoever found Queen Adelaide's Crown, it's the business. I agree the Queen Mother's crown is big and boxy. Funnily, it looks better on display than it did on her head. Whoever observed about the fit is right.

^*Adding that in the case of Spain, the disgraced (although once seen as heroic and very popular) and corrupt Juan Carlos stepped down because he had to, and fled the country for safety in some Gulf state with his longtime mistress.

But Queen Beatrix of The Netherlands stepped down a few years ago precisely to avoid the Prince of Wales situation. She demoted herself to Princess Beatrix to avoid the Two Queens situation, although that hasn't seemed to be much of a problem for modern Britain, which at one time had three, the widowed Queens Mary and Elizabeth, and the young Queen Regnant Elizabeth II. The Queen Mother proved an enormous asset to the monarchy in her half a century of widowhood.

King Albert stepped down about ten years ago, citing ill health. His heir, Prince Philippe, and his beautiful and popular wife, Mathilde, took over smoothly with no problems.

It can be done if it's done carefully.

I wonder if Queen Margrethe has any plans to step down at 85 or so.

R305 - It was picked apart in order to make the Queen's engagement ring and the large diamond bracelet Philip gave Elizabeth as a wedding present. There were no aquamarines that I knew of, or if so, they never appeared in any other piece of jewellery in the Queen's collection.

The Queen has leant Kate her wedding bracelet at least once, a mark of extreme favour. I don't think Anne, or Sophie, or Bea or Euge, or any of the other royal women in the Queen's family have ever been seen in that bracelet. See below (it is on her free wrist, not the one holding the glass) and I think that is the Lotus tiara.

I don't recognise the other bracelet. It may have been a wedding gift directly to Kate.

R300 ..."Camilla was portrayed as a kind of wicked character who got a twisted kick out of tormenting Diana"...

I'm on the fence about this statement. In general, I think Camilla is a good person but there's one story I remember that shows her more cunning nature.

Didn't Camilla have lunch with Diana in the early days and asked her if she was going to ride. Diana said: "Ride what?" (not too bright was she?) and Camilla said "horses". Diana said "no".

I took that conversation to mean that Camilla was pumping the unsuspecting Diana for information so Camilla and Charles could get together at the various hunting events, rendezvous at the country houses and wouldn't have to worry about Diana being in the way. That's major manipulating mean girl shit to me.

Well, aquamarines are semiprecious technically, but i’m sure the ones in Alice’s tiara given by the Romanov’s were the finest money could buy. Maybe they wound up with the four Greek princesses and that’s why they have never been seen again. But Alice’s tiara definitely had aquamarines in it, along the top. d

[quote]Philip’s mother Princess Alice had a beautiful aquamarine and diamond tiara, they she picked apart it give diamonds to Philip. Presumably what was left over funded her charity order of nuns, or she used it to give to stones to her four daughters.

Alice's tiara had been a wedding present from Nicholas and Alexandra. Philip was fairly poor, living on a navy man's income. He had no funds to give a decent ring and a suitable wedding present. Alice had already given away most of her jewels but not that piece. She gave it to Philip, who had it dismantled. The best stones were used to make her ring and the rest were used to make the Edinburgh wedding bracelet, discussed above.

Elizabeth was known to treasure the bracelet which is why there was such surprise that Kate has been wearing it since 2015.

There is no obligation to bow or curtsy to the queen--the palace does not insist upon it.

What most people don't know is Camilla dumped Charles. She was madly in love with Parker Bowles who was a notoriously good lover, dashing, charming and a great catch. Even Princess Anne was chasing Parker Bowles. Charles is boring and whines all the time like his little boy Harry. When Parker Bowles was flaunting his love affairs with other women, Camilla relented and started paying attention to Charles again. I've never thought she loved him. He was who she was left with. She only loved Parker Bowles.

[quote] Didn't Camilla have lunch with Diana in the early days and asked her if she was going to ride. Diana said: "Ride what?" (not too bright was she?) and Camilla said "horses". Diana said "no".

[quote]I took that conversation to mean that Camilla was pumping the unsuspecting Diana for information so Camilla and Charles could get together at the various hunting events, rendezvous at the country houses and wouldn't have to worry about Diana being in the way. That's major manipulating mean girl shit to me.

You admit you're not clear on your facts and are engaging in suppositions ("Didn't Camilla...?" "I took that conversation to mean.."), and yet you're basing huge condemnatory judgments based on them when you're not even sure if they're true.

Get it together.

Anne wasn't just chasing Parker Bowles, they had a brief affair.

r326, meet r267.

To who ever FF this enough to get rid of that photo thank you, it was terrifying whenever it came up.

Victoria summoned The D'Oyly Carte Company to to Buckingham Palace for a Command Performance of The Gondoliers in one of the larger state rooms. Many people who were there reported that she delightedly tapped her foot in rhythm to A Regular Royal Queen, totally oblivious to the vicious personal satire.

I've always suspected that incident was the inspiration for the scene in Foul Play where the Pope taps the Papal Ring in rhythm to a performance The Mikado.

R324 - is that you, River?

R311/R316 - I'm sure you know more than I do about the respective situations of the Continental countries where monarchs have abdicated as a form of retirement rather than due to issues of popularity. (Juan Carlos is the exception to that, I know.) However, what is being suggested here is that Charles retire or be skipped, not because of infirmity or impropriety, but for PR reasons.

First of all, I think that Charles is too proud to be willing to do that unless truly necessary and, while people may like William and Kate, it's not like anyone is positively on fire at the prospect of them as King and Queen. Charles may argue that the switch would do more harm than good.

Secondly, it's difficult to skip Charles any time soon, barring some health mishap. He may be a septugenarian but he's a septugenarian both of whose parents were living until recently, whose mother is still alive and whose grandmother lived to almost 102. Charles would have to be 80 at a minimum (or very ill) before putting him out to pasture for "health reasons" would look like anything other than PR.

R330, I caught River for the first time the other day as I wanted to hear his take on the Camilla news. It must have been a year since I last watched one of his videos. Is he transitioning?

R286, I am a bona fide Anglophile, been there 10 times (including two tours with my British Lit students, its being a subject I taught for a career), and so say with utmost respect: Not about glamo(u)r or celebrity? Are you KIDDING ME?!

Princess Margaret and Antony Armstrong-Jones. Olympian Anne. Fashionistas in Exile, the Windsors. Young Prince Charles photographed on his sojourns to Africa, his polo games, his televised investiture as Prince of Wales. Prince Harry and his girlfriends. And, of course, Diana.

Sometimes it does, r2.

R289. Interesting you don’t dispute any of the unsavoury facts about Diana. I’m not at all excited about Camilla is Queen. I just think it embarrassing for any adult to believe the Diana fairy tale. You ça. certainly admire Diana because you find her prettier and younger than other people, because you think she suffered as no other human being had, because you favorite the charities she adopted over the ones Charles adopted, or because you sympathise with her vacuity, but to make her a sainted victim is embarrassing.

Wait. Princess Anne had an affair with Camilla's husband?

R336 - yeah, and he's godfather to one of her children too.

^ Before he was Camilla's husband and before Anne herself was married, but yes.

R333, they may be turned into celebrities in the universal sense but they do not seek it for the purpose of publicity. Bar one. It's a different mentality about the job. Not to say there aren't holy terrors in the ranks but they see their work as much different than glamour or celebrity. That's a media decision. When I was a kid, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, even the superfluous coverage was in the news section of the newspapers. Royal tours were daily news in the country in which they visited. Deference was dying then, certainly, and with it where the work of the monarchy landed and how it was treated.

You still know jackshit about the purpose of the royal family, r333, as exemplified by your romantic idealisation of the United Kingdom. If you think what's in your second paragraph is at all relevant to their purpose then you're even more ignorant than I first thought.

Ever wondered why your view of the royals doesn't appear in "British Lit"?

R318 the Camilla and Diana lunch happened on “The Crown”, which was fiction, not a documentary.

Oh dear god it’s the past Charles Should Step Aside troll at R311 - reheating it’s leftover posts yet again.

I’ll oh dear myself - “its” not “it’s”.

Camilla did meet Diana for lunch before her wedding per Tina Brown's Diana Chronicles. I don't recall that she reported anything about the conversation if she was privy to it.

R342, I've come to love the royal trolls... their insistence is infuriating but their persistence is funny as hell.

We've got the Charles must abdicate or the monarchy will fall troll.

We've got the Queen Mother died broke and couldn't have left trusts because the Queen got everything troll.

We've got the British tax law provides for freedom from estate tax on gifts given at least seven years prior to the death of the giver so that's why the Queen Mother died broke troll (that's actually me.)

We've got the York Girls Are Nice so Will Be Getting More Royal Duties Any Minute troll

And the comparatively recent, arriviste KG Megaloonytuneywhoopdido troll.

I feel like Fraulein Maria - I know I've forgotten someone so God bless the what's his name? troll.

You haven’t mentioned the “authorities have been notified and they’re uncovering the ISPs as we speak” troll.

I assumed that's the KG Megaloonytuneywhoopdido troll.

I’m starting a GoFundMe for cash strapped Royals.

Watch for the link that says “Fund is Organized and Managed by the Duchess of Mendocino”.

***no need to read the fine print

May have forgotten the Half A Dozen Theories About How the Queen Will Give Away The Royal Jewels troll (some estate planning of late, I've noticed) and - and feeling very badly about this - completely forgot the Charles Loves Clarence House and Won't Live In Buckingham Palace and Will Probably Sell Sandringham or Balmoral troll.

Montecito. Mendocino is up north. She and her airs would not be appreciated in that part of the state. The locals -- granolas, people who wanted to get away from cities, pot farmers, ranchers, and rednecks -- couldn't be more different than the Montecito and L.A. crowd.

Don't forget the Tiara Troll and various Titles Trolls.

I’m Oh, Dearing myself R350.

Thank you for the correction.

The Diana loons on Twitter are giving me serious secondhand embarrassment.

Their "artwork" is hilarious. On LSA I saw one with Diana depicted with angels wings, flanked by William and Harry -- with William looking like fucking Beavis of "Beavis and Butthead". Sadly I didn't save it.

I know this announcement gas been met with some hysterical condemnation on Twitter, but I don’t think that is particularly representative. There is a significant minority who will never be reconciled to Camilla as Queen, but I think most people either don’t care or already accepted long ago that she would be Queen. And she has achieved mild popularity: she has fit into the royal family, showing respect to the Queen without seeking the limeliht.

Every country has it’s own customs. Abdication may be possible in some other European monarchies, but here in Britain it is extremely rare and inextricably linked with failure. Charles will take the throne if there is breath in his body.

There is also no sign at all that William is in a hurry to become King. He obviously values his family life, and shelters his children as much as possible. I imagine it really suits him to raise his children to adulthood before he and Kate take centre stage.

Not that all of them will survive to adulthood...

Ugh, sorry for the spelling errors above. It’s late here…

r330 I love the thought of River posting on here or even just reading and digesting all the chatter in the royal threads!!

[quote]But all the other peers with their ducal coroners

I know this is a typo, but I think aristocratic medical examiners should be mandatory in British police procedurals.

R355 Well, you may be right and my pessimism overheated. And it's a point avour William and Kate wanting a bit more time raising the kids, who are still between 3 and 8.

But I still think it's not the best look or option for the monarchy's long-term survival.

We'll just have to see how things pan out, especially over this year as Harry readies his next salvo at the family and especially at his parents and their affairs.

Is it "on the cards" or "in the cards"?

Charles won't be a long-term reign.

I used to enjoy the jewel-hungry Queen Mary troll, but it did get old after awhile. Especially because it was a role-playing troll.

Did the Megaloon/Klan Granny Troll get blocked?

Rumors are swirling that the future Queen Camilla will wear the Queen's Mother's crown.

Which one R364? There is no one "megaloon, klan granny" troll. There are a few of us old DLers who think you guys are mentally ill for thinking it's one person.

Camilla was in Bath today. She needs a makeover. Her hair is a mess.

Camilla needs a whole face transplant. That is one homely broad. She wasn't even pretty when young.

[quote]Didn't Camilla have lunch with Diana in the early days and asked her if she was going to ride. Diana said: "Ride what?" (not too bright was she?) and Camilla said "horses". Diana said "no".

She was 19. I think some people are too eager to credit stupidity for what was inexperience.

Diana wasn't dumber than the rest of the royals. None of them are particularly intelligent, and even though I am sure I called Kate "dumb" a few times when she wouldn't put weights in her hems, I think she's probably one of the smartest members of the family right now, which gives me hope that their kids won't be complete upper class twits like the rest of them.

Well, R368, she's coming up 75, so I don't really see the point. It would have to be very subtle if she wants to avoid looking desperate but, OTOH, Charles and Camilla will make for a somewhat absurd picture at their coronation, two old people being anointed "for life", etc.

And that's not even accounting for the possibility that the Queen will live for another five years or so (certainly not impossible): add to that the period for organising the coronation and both Charles and Camilla would be over 80 at the coronation.

[quote] Which one [R364]? There is no one "megaloon, klan granny" troll. There are a few of us old DLers who think you guys are mentally ill for thinking it's one person.

How many people are you, Sybil, and how many accounts do you use?

My mother is 78 and looks 20 years younger than hag, Camilla. English women age like shit. Maybe it's the humidity here in the South that preserves the skin. Kate Middleton is already getting that haggard, too much sun, too many ciggies look.

I always thought there was about one primary external KGT troll but she usually came armed with a friend or two. It would get a lonely one or two W&W.

There also seems to be a DLer or two grinding the axe for Harry's notorious first wife. I just see her as an international joke now. She's spent. Spinning her wheels.

Kate doesn't smoke. I think William does. The teeth are very yellow.

Whatever happens when the Queen dies, I know one thing is certain: Charles (and by extension, Camilla) will not be held in such high esteem and treated with such reverence as his mother by the public or the press. He needs to be VERY careful not to screw up. He won't have the freedom as monarch that he had as Prince of Wales.

No one would be held in as high reverence as QEII. Those are huge shoes to fill.

But Charles will be fine. No, he won't be as massively revered as his mother. But he will be respected by the majority of Brits, he's been heir-in-waiting for many years, they are familiar with him and all his foibles and know what to expect. He's been a massively hard-working Prince of Wales, that much is certain, and they will respect his work ethic,

If he can tone down his grandeur instincts even a bit, keep trimming the monarchy as he's been wont to do for many years, and keep up basic appearances, he'll do fine. As to the first point, he made good strides today by announcing (via proxies, of course) that he intends to live and work in Buck Palace once he is King, he won't be abandoning it to museum status and stubbornly shacking up in Clarence House as had been rumored for so long. He recognizes (shades of his mother) the need for imagery and appearances: a working King needs to be living and working in the lead palace to be taken seriously.

[quote]As to the first point, he made good strides today by announcing (via proxies, of course) that he intends to live and work in Buck Palace once he is King

But bad news for one of our theme trolls.

[quote] My mother is 78 and looks 20 years younger than hag, Camilla. English women age like shit. Maybe it's the humidity here in the South that preserves the skin.

It, not the humidity dear, it’s the body fat that stuffs many elderly Americans and smooths out the wrinkles.

No, sorry, R378. Not fat at all but there's a reason for the "magnolia" comparison.

Did you have too cycle through your multiple accounts to find one I could still see, granny?

I'm not sure, R364. I have a total of 2 people blocked and never see the klan granny troll accusations anymore. At the beginning I think there were people who genuinely stanned Meghan here, but now I think it's mostly people who are a)sick of having Meghan brought up in non-royal threads, which does happen sometimes and b)people who (wrongly) believe that a lack of support for the Sussexes means a person is a nasty right winger and probable racist. I'm fairly left of center politically, have never voted conservative or not supported most progressive causes and I can't stand either Sussex.

[quote] Did you have too cycle through your multiple accounts to find one I could still see, granny?

Oh, dear, r379.

That’s a bit weird. And vastly overestimates the degree to which I yearn for your attention.

Do feel free to ignore me too, if my posts perturb you. I’ll find some way, someday, to come to terms with the loss.

No problem R381. I loathe you grannies. Have a nice day.

[quote] Did you have too cycle through

Oh dear.

How come these Sussex loons are incapable of using the fine English language CORRECTLY?

R380, I find stans and haters of any celeb to be fairly mental. The BRF and Harry and Meghan are fairly boring and the over the top worship or hatred of them is disturbing. Just look at the response to a post saying Kate is anything but glowing with youth or Camilla is homely. They lose their shit.

R383: south of the river.

South of the river definitely is problematic, r385.

So Charles announced today where he plans to live when the Queen expires. This is all being exposed so fast. There's a reveal just about every day. For the first time, I think the Queen may not be well. And they are trying to have an outline ready to put into place very quickly.

R387 The stuff about BP I think wasn't leaked by Charles. Some of the stuff was deliberately leaked, but not all of it. Now they've got the Cambridges "taking over" Windsor Castle, but William thinks it's . . . too small.

Then two weeks ago it was Fort Belvedere for the Cambridges.

Windsor Castle is the private home of the monarch outside the city but still a Crown Estate property. The two personally owned homes Charles will inherit are Balmoral and Sandringham, but the rumours also insist he'll use Highgrove for his "country home". But Highgrove is hardly big enough for those large family visits at Christmas and Easter.

Charles adores Balmoral, as well.

And what becomes of Clarence House if Charles and Camilla really do move to BP as their home when they take up residence in London?

The deal with the Cambridges when their "apartment", 1A, underwent that expensive renovation, was that it would be their permanent home base in London until such time as William became King, and, the adjacent apartment, 1, was to be turned into offices and reception rooms as William became more influential and, obviously, Prince of Wales.

They could turn Clarence House into a year round tourist attraction, I suppose.

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

[quote]And what becomes of Clarence House if Charles and Camilla really do move to BP as their home when they take up residence in London?

It could be converted into comfortable offices for royal staff, until such time as it would be used again as a royal residence. I'm thinking when George comes of age and is married. Or, perhaps if Harry ever returns to the UK, it would make a good London residence for him, separate from KP and BP.

Clarence House is owned by the Crown, i.e. the state, r390. No way will Harry be permitted to live off the taxpayer.

[quote]We want them to perform their duties, stand as symbols for the nation, and represent our country abroad in its foreign relations

LOL so you want this? You are not doing yourselves any favors with that ugly immoral "servant". You may LOOOOVE her but that old horse face broad has no appeal outside the UK. You say you don't want celebrities, but that's what they are. The British Paparazzi is who taught Hollywood how to do the job. You guys eat that shit up like candy.

She severs only one person, herself. That's the brand of public servant you are selling to the outside world. But it's your county, knock yourself out.

I will say one thing, that she sure knows how to win in the final stretch stretch.

An interview with Camilla's son last year.

Said he had no idea what she would be called when the time came, stays out of the Harry & Meghan business, calls The Crown BS, speaks very highly of Charles and says that his kids are close to their step-grandpa.

Why does he even need her? Can you picture that old twat spreading her legs? 🤮🤮🤮

[quote]Why does he even need her? Can you picture that old twat spreading her legs? 🤮🤮🤮

As we come upon HM, The Queen's Platinum Jubilee, we are met by disgusting commoners intent on robbing HM Elizabeth of whatever they believe is more important.

Too many twats spoil the "broth."

Vanity Fair in 2005. The predictions have more or less come true

R396 Too many Americans who believe that succession to the monarchy is a competition based upon looks and popularity.

They know very little but have an obsessive need to share that paucity of knowledge with the rest of us.

r392 She is not immoral. She had no romantic or sexual contact with Charles for the best part of 5 years and similarly little social contact. Diana broke ranks with her marriage vows first and when she contacted Lady Colin Campbell in 1990 to write a book about her she gave her an entirely different version of her marriage than she gave Andrew Morton for his 1992 book.In the latter book her victim status was high and was virtually non existent in her previous conversations when working on a book with Lady Colin Campbell. Lady C could see Diana was lying and changing her story so she then wrote the book without any furthur cooperation of Diana.

R388 - read the article you posted. William will be potentially taking over Windsor Castle because the other castle on the property, the one that is currently leased by a rich family friend, is the one he thought too small. Charles doesn't like Windsor because he was never a fan of the location, the memories, and finds it too noisy being on the flight path.

There is also talk of William taking over Frogmore House as well.

These people all need to shut up where they are moving and what they will be called. Keep it private if they must figure it all out. The Queen isn't dead. I find their concerns about such matters deeply unroyal.

Queen Camilla does have a nice ring to it. Diana fans need to get it into their heads that Diana was never going to be queen, not after the divorce. Very interesting how it's mostly Americans complaining about this when:

1. Your opinion is irrelevant. You don't get a say.

2. The Queen has stated her wish, so literally no one will deny it or publicly resist it. It will happen.

[QUOTE] But Highgrove is hardly big enough for those large family visits at Christmas and Easter.

Charles’ family might be smaller. His mother liked to entertain all the descendants of George V, but I don’t know if Charles is going to see the need to have his mother’s cousins and their descendants all about. I think people like Marina Mowat and Lady Helen Windsor have had her time on the royal balcony and won’t be there again. I could be wrong but I think Charles wants smaller.

[quote]Diana wasn't dumber than the rest of the royals.

Apparently you missed the part higher up the thread where we were told "When Diana was first married the courtiers were amazed at her ignorance. It was encyclopaedic."

Diana herself said that fortunately William took after Charles in the brain department, whereas Harry was "an airhead like me".

What she was good at was sizing people up: something manipulative types have to do well.

I am sorry to inform the Camilla Hate Lunatic above that Camilla and Charles have been abroad representing Britain frequently over the last 15 years with no ilI effects on the relationships between Britain and the host countries.

They have also received visiting Heads of State only too happy to get p bu pro ops with themselves between the future King and Queen.

Typical American. Always about looks.

Maxima of The Netherlands is no beauty, either, and her father couldn't come to the wedding because he'd been part of the regime in Argentina. Eggs were thrown at the golden coach in which she rode back from the wedding.

She's now both respected and liked in her adopted country.

The whole point you blinkered moron, it's that it's about substance, not style. If you can get style with the substance, fine. But it's the icing, not the cake.

Camilla has been doing her job for longer than Diana did, only with less fanfare.

Well be sure to give the victims of domestic abuse that Camilla chose as one of her most visible causes that if they weren't pretty, they deserve to be shat on.

This is why American culture is so shallow. They don't care what it is, only how it looks.

Diana was only out for herself, too. Her narcissism makes Camilla look like St Theresa.

People who snag heirs to thrones are usually not ecstatic about it due to an overdose of altruistic genes.

It's what they do with their good luck afterward that counts (looking at you, Meghan, dear).

Yeah, Diana was gorgeous. And demanding, childish, paranoid, self-obsessed, manipulative, and ended up doing more damage to her kids and the monarchy than Camilla could do in two lifetimes.

Diana had blown that marriage up by the time they got back to Bal.oral after the Honeymoon from Hell, as Tina Brown so sapiently put it.

Grow the fuck up.

^ Shit, I W&W that until we got the Diana was only out for herself. None of the players were any one thing and Diana did a lot of stupid things and unkind things but there is no truth to the notion she was on a one woman seek and destroy mission. I'd also argue Diana broke the monarchy out of the Edwardian mode and into a place that better connnected with the only power that matters: public support. She did not destory the monarchy nor did she save it but she did sustain it.

R405, it is absolutely untrue that all America cares about is looks. Dump didn’t get elected because of his looks, for g-d sure. And you forget—Great Britain was just as charmed by Diana, even more so than everywhere else.

Diana didn't really have that much public support r406. The royal family already had it. She didn't destroy, save or sustain the monarchy. She did make one great contribution to the monarchy, however: William.

The notion that the monarchy in the UK is vulnerable is a very silly idea.

Right.. yesterday said 58% of respondents in polling agreed Diana would have made a better Queen than Camilla... and Diana's been dead for almost 25 years. And when she did that funeral was not the last of someone who "didn't really have that much public support." Come on. That's a baseless thing to say.

She has public support - or, rather, celebrity pull - posthumously, r409.

I've not seen that poll, but it's fascinating that people who barely remember Diana or who were born after she died can give an opinion.

Charles carried out an investiture at Windsor.

It's called figures in history, R410. Like when people rank greatest presidents.

You are kidding yourself if you think her polling is posthumous. You plainly weren't there.

R400 Frogmore HOUSE?! You're joking. It was renovated some years ago to be useful for receptions, weddings, banquets, and a tourist attraction in the summer. It isn't remotely set up for family life. Just what the BRF need: another expensive renovation to accommodate the Cambridges, who have already been the beneficiaries of two, albeit only one on the taxpayers' backs.

What memories of the castle is Charles perturbed by?!

I think the media are just cheerfully making shit up. Windsor Castle is a major landmark association with the royal family, just like BP. It can't simply be abandoned.

It is the monarch's official non-London base. It's a half hour from the capital (give or take depending on traffic).

Sandringham and Balmoral are strictly personally owned homes. The rest of those mentioned are all part of the Crown Estates.

Fort Belvedere too small?! FFs, the renovations that were carried out make it a fantastic place to live. It has a swimming pool, tennis courts, a lake that was doubled in size by its current tenant, the billionaire Westons, stables including a polo stud area. . . . it is also a Crown Estates property.

I can see them rejecting the Fort because of the tenants and the knotty issue of throwing out a billionaire who made vast improvements to the property, or because it looks so ridiculously like a kid's idea of a medieval fort (which, ironically, is the sensibility that built it) - but too small?!

If they could get Andrew and Fergie out, Royal Lodge is really the logical answer, but unless he announces that he's leaving voluntarily, the brutal shove would finish off the remaining shreds of tolerance between the Yorks and the Cambridges.

There is one real advantage to Frogmore House, and that would be the delicious fury of the Harkles, who only got Frogmore Cottage.

^ Talk about making stuff up. For one thing, the billionaire is dead and his widow is 80, with homes around the world.

Frogmore House is open to the public three days and all of August, annually.

^*Now I bethink me, paying off Andrew for the renovations to Royal Lodge, and buying him out of his 99 year lease might be a way for the Queen to kill two birds with one stone: she can fill Andrew's coffers in exchange for the place, give the Cambridges and appropriate home at Windsor, and she'll find someplace else nice for Andrew.

Sounds like a plan to me.

R410, lots of people who were born too late to remember Diana have set opinions about her. She's particularly fashionable with people who hate the monarchy and seem to think that Diana was some kind of double agent, undermining the monarchy from within. They're the "radicals", "gays" and ethnic part of this picture.

Men do not get it, but maybe some gay men will understand the dynamics of a woman joining a family.

Families (I mean actual families, large families with multiple generations) are tribes, clans. There’s a hierarchy and an expectation of loyalty and conforming to standards. Maybe it’s not *fair*, but it’s human nature. You have to court the entire family and work for acceptance into the clan.

Women have had this soft power forever. It may not be much, but when people don’t have much power, they wield it especially energetically. (Cheryl with the keys to the office supply closet.) When a woman marries in, she needs to seek the approval of the matriarch and other women. Men usually get waved in by the women, unless they’re egregiously awful. A woman, no matter how wonderful, always undergoes a full inspection and test. A hazing.

If a woman wants to avoid all that, she needs to find herself an orphaned only child.

r416 Wl they are VERY misguided then. Diana 100% believed in the royal right to reign and the royal system in principle .

Yes, I was there r412. I'm also from the UK and understand what the point of the monarchy is. It's not a popularity contest.

Please give us a link to this strange poll that was apparently done yesterday - not that it's relevant.

In any case, silly debates such as Diana's popularity vs Camilla's or whether the royals were nasty to her will all become moot once Diana's son becomes king.

It was in the Daily Mail yesterday. Linked to already many times.

Absolutely, r481, which is why dumb GenZers who only know Diana from Instagram and the Crown and think Meghan is the new Diana have no fucking clue what they're on about if they try to use her as an argument against the British Royal family. The most brilliant thing in Diana's life was the prospect of William becoming king. In fact, that is what kept her relevant for the public.

R335 said You ça. certainly admire Diana because you find her prettier and younger than other people, because you think she suffered as no other human being had, because you favorite the charities she adopted over the ones Charles adopted, or because you sympathise with her vacuity, but to make her a sainted victim is embarrassing.

I never said any of that. You just make shit up and are quite the jackass.

The only reason there are "silly" debates about Diana is because she touched a chord.

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

I think many folk cannot fathom Charles preferring the ugly step-sister over the beautiful Princess.

Diana had enough, r406, for the crowds to annoy Charles on walk-abouts.

Pretty is as pretty does. I'm sure a few years of living with Diana's tears, tantrums, and vomiting took the bloom off that English rose.

R425, I have heard attractive women (my own gorgeous but difficult sister) gripe about some plain or hefty woman “Oh, SHE has a boyfriend but I can’t find one!” My reply is usually “Do you really want the man she managed to snag?”

But really, looks aren’t everything. Or even much of anything, when choosing a life partner.

R424, it's a poll. There is no basis to believe it is not an accurate poll. It seems very important to you to beat this to death, so you are just absolutely right about absolutely everything you think and post. Congratulations. Smartest Datalounger and Royal Watcher ever.

There's no prize.

The monarchy was Diana's son's patrimony. She was proud of her aristocratic pedigree. She was the beneficiary of a system she understood very well.

She was no rebel and would have pushed Meghan off that balcony if she felt thr L.A. grifter was in any way endangering William's future position.

"People forget I'm a Spencer," she once said.

She loved being royal, she loved being rich, she loved being famous.

What she wanted was the institution and Charles grovelling at her feet, not the demise of the institution.

Which is what Meghan and Harry wanted.

Too bad they didn't learn from Diana's failures.

Diana wanted a prince who was heir to the throne and a husband. But wanting a husband is not a failure.

It's a meaningless poll, r429, and it's easy very to pull apart. I'm not a royal watcher, I'm a British citizen.

You're also dull as dishwater and blocked.

Sorry, you're not dull... you're pedantic and annoying and just make things up to suit whatever you've fixed on. And you're blocked, but I'm sure your life experience will carry you through more of the same.

Oh look, the “and you’re blocked” troll has dropped in!

Was anyone ever in doubt that she'd become Queen?

R436 honestly if the Queen hadn't been so long-lived, I think it might've been an issue. So much time has passed that only the Diana loons care. Camilla's had a long "audition" so to speak, and she's acquitted herself well.

Furthermore, r437, it's also quite clear by now that Charles won't be king and Camilla won't be queen for long, while William and Kate, who will follow, are highly respected and we will be able to look forward to them, so to speak. Everything is sorted and in place for the next 2-3 monarchs.

If the Diana loons really care about Diana, then they will be delighted when William becomes king.

R436 - There wasn't any doubt she'd become Queen, it was what she would be called when she did that was in doubt, and that was the BRF's fault, because to head off the early outrage, the website told the public Camilla would be called "Princess Consort: when Charles became King.

But the winds have shifted somewhat and it became clear to everyone that whilst Queen Camilla might have some negative aspects to some people, Princess Consort Camilla was simply ridiculous.

So all the Queen was doing was bowing to the obvious and telling the UK public to get the fuck over it. The King's wife is the Queen unless they've entered into a morganatic marriage, which they didn't.

Good for her!

And fuck, Diana is 25 years in her grave. It could be 30 by the time Charles becomes King. People DO need to get over it.

R441 - Oh, God, yes.

How long do we suppose the Megaloons and the KGT will keep insisting that everyone loves Meghan and Harry and hates William and Kate and that the UK really wants Harry and Meghan to take the throne no matter what the polls say?

[quote] If the Diana loons really care about Diana, then they will be delighted when William becomes king.

Exactly. Well said.

[quote] "People forget I'm a Spencer," she once said.

I never knew why she was called Lady, or what her rank meant, until I watched Downton Abbey.

[quote] If the Diana loons really care about Diana, then they will be delighted when William becomes king.

I’ll be excited when William’s children have children, to put more space between the throne and Harry. Harry is still way too close for comfort. Until they have children, when William becomes king, Harry will be 4th in line.

Can Kate please have another baby? We know she loves to ride William's cock --- so please do it for us this time, Kate! You go, girl!

R430 she did not understand it well enough or soon enough. I don't know that she was stupid as much as dreadfully sheltered and inexperienced. She finally learned after it was too late or she could have saved her marriage and her situation, including her financial situation. She was often financially strapped and I have read that her final summer on Fayed's yacht, she only accepted because she had no other options. She had no funds that summer and her brother had gone away so she was not able to stay there either.

R445 I forgot about that. Harry and his kids move up when Charles becomes King. That's probably why TQ won't take the HRH from the kids and left the Sussex tiitle intact.

R447, she died with 20 million pounds, an office budget and free housing. Where do you get money problems? SMH.

R447 That is absurd. She got a huge settlement in the divorce and totally took Charles to the cleaners. He had to liquidate his entire portfolio to pay it. That's the money that formed the basis of her sons' trust funds. She also had money of her own. She had plenty of money.

But she was out of interesting social options. Her brother refused to key her stay in the guest house at Althorp because of press intrusion, the boys spent the summer up at Balmoral, her friends were all out of town, and Hasnat Khan had broken with her.

So she took up with Dodi Fayed.

But the idea that she had no funds is ludicrous.

I think the pro-Diana posters here (especially the poor misguided one who thinks Diana respected the succession) are forgetting about the part in the Panorama interview where she said that (a) she did not believe Charles has what it takes to be a good king and (b) she did not believe he even wanted to be king - which is clear now to have been a total lie. This coming on international television from someone who was still his wife.

Utterances worthy of Cersei Lannister, which in the olden days would have swiftly resulted in the separation of her head from her neck. This part of the interview was certainly the reason the Queen insisted on an immediate divorce and removal of the HRH. The guff about Camilla was just a sideshow compared with the rising suspicion that Diana might use William to establish a rival court for installation upon the Queen's death. (Many of our American friends on this thread remain proof to this day that this scheme could have been a real threat.)

[quote]She is not immoral. She had no romantic or sexual contact with Charles for the best part of 5 years and similarly little social contact.

Selective memory? She was fucking him before Diana and during Diana and while she was married to another man. I think that qualifies as immoral, or at least trash. But whatever floats your boat. If that's what you think best represents your country then so be it.

She has a face that rivals Medusa. You cant unsee it.

All that money and still bad teeth. Perhaps she should take on dentistry as her next cause, just sayin.

The reason she left the titles r448 is because it would be far too radical to remove them, not because she thinks Harry might be king one day (which he won't even if William and his children all die early).

[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.]

Not to make this about Covid, but luckily vaxxed people are not getting seriously ill with Covid. It ran through a ton of my acquaintances and relatives about three-four weeks ago, and only the ones who weren’t vaxxed were pretty sick and took longer to recover. No one was hospitalized, luckily. But none of them were Charles’ age.

Bill Clinton cheated on his wife.throughout his marriage and presidency and then hit caught fucking a young intern IN THE OVAL OFFICE.

You didn't mind him leading your government and representing your country. Did you?

Clinton had the morals of a goat. He couldn't keep it in his trousers for more than five minutes and he humiliated his wife and teenage daughter AND cost Gore thousands of votes that might have made a difference in the 2000 election that might have meant no Iraq invasion.

The Leader of the Free World, as they say.

And you're screeching morality about a man who went back to comforting arms because Diana's fucking insanity drove him there?

Sweetie, how is it that Camilla is a home wrecking Jezebel of Biblical proportions, but Diana's exorbitant emotional demands, shitty mothering, narcissism, press manipulation, wrecking Will Carling's marriage, stalking Oliver Hoare, driving Hasnat Khan crazy the way she did Charles, and then going with one of the sleaziest men on the planet?

Immoral? What is this, Judea in 100 BCE?!

This was a common gatden variety marriages gone bad story. Only the partcipants' fame makes it different, bit the basics are the same.

Ffs, grow up. This is nothing but hate and misogyny.

She's been representing the country for 17 years and doing a quite nice job of it.

Christ, JFK was cheating on Jackie on their honeymoon and brought mobsters mols into the White House, LBJ cheated on Lady Burd and lied up the wazuli to the public about Vietnam, look what Nixon did, then there was Bill thr Billygoat, Dubya with an invasion built on lies, and Trump.

And you have the gall to tell Brits with that by tuous self-righteous bullshit, "Well, if that's who you want representing your country . . "

People with glass White Houses shouldn't throw stones.

How about we resurrect the stocks and start putting adulteresses in them and you can come and throw eggs at them with the other pious puerile moralists?

Nothing like a well reasoned, dispassionate argument.

Charles has Covid again? I'm puzzled why face masks aren't more prevalent in the UK. Every time I see pictures of events or gatherings involving royals, masks are are scarcely seen. It was jarring to see almost all of the pictured faces in the House of Commons uncovered during Bojo's speech. (Granted, I live in a state with a mask mandate (California)

Yeah, to catch Covid once is unfortunate. To catch it a second time is careless and foohardy.

Hopefully, the infection will not effect any of Charles' major organs or result in long haul Covid symptoms.

William is in Dubai. He doesn't need to catch it again either or bring it home to his family.

^ foolhardy

Charles and Camilla were at a function last night. All of these people should be tested for Covid.

Camilla is itching away from this guy but she finally says something.

R464 - a little disingenuous on Camilla's part. Four years ago, she supposedly told a couple of the press members that she would have the Queen title.

R458, first they they were voted in because they were competent. They didn’t get the job because they were born into it. They didn’t pretend to be some “royal” who we have to bow and curtesy to and who basically do nothing except bs PR.

R465, this time though it was HMTQ who has expressed the wish of Cammy having the Queen title.

R460, all restrictions are being lifted in England this month, even the one that requires self-isolation if you have Covid. Prepare for a sharp spike in cases!

R466, the monarch is the head of state, that's a fundamental constitutional job. Americans have little concept of what that means though, seeing as their head of state and head of government is the same person, hence the political extremism and hugely polarised society.

Getting Covid twice is nothing special when you're up and about meeting quite a lot of people on a pretty regular basis. I guess he's ok. He should stay away from HMTQ, though.

The Queen Mother’s crown is box shaped because The Queen Mother’s head was cake-shaped.

Is it right a journalist should get something off the record but then reveal they knew it after it's on the record? I thought off the record was like the mafia - there's no getting out.

With everything else going on in the world, I find it hard to understand why this is such a big deal.

Is the idea that somebody who committed adultery shouldn't have an HRH? Because that would include Charles and Diana, too. And William, if rumor is correct. Who's left?

They're as likely to cheat as anybody.

I think there is a hardcore Diana fringe but I also think there's a component who don't think they're being candid. There's a tweet either upthread or elsewhere by a credible journalist claiming Camilla swore them to secrecy a couple years ago. That sort of insider/outsider bullshit is unhelpful when it gets out.

It will be for the best for the UK if Charles were to go to his reward now. It would wash away the sins of Charles and Camilla and allow William to start with a clean slate after the Queen dies. Charles and Camilla and their generation are too tainted.

[Quote]Is the idea that somebody who committed adultery shouldn't have an HRH? Because that would include Charles and Diana

If this were the case Victoria, George VI, and Elizabeth II were the only monarchs in the last several centuries who deserved the HRH and eventuall HM titles.

[quote] Is the idea that somebody who committed adultery shouldn't have an HRH? Because that would include Charles and Diana, too. And William, if rumor is correct.

Whataboutism has zero impact on determining what should be done with Camilla.

The Omicron variant is so highly contagious that many are getting it two or more times. If they're vaccinated, many don't even know they have it as the symptoms can be so mild. Charles is likely being regularly tested, so he knows he is positive, I'm guessing he has very mild symptoms (he is fully vaxxed).

He better not have infected his mother the Queen.

Can you imagine if he did? His mother uses the unique goodwill that people have for her as she reaches her Platinum Jubilee to help shore up his desire to have Camilla accepted as Queen and then he goes and gives her fucking Covid shortly before her 96th birthday.

Like Caligula Charles married a horse and we know what happened to him.

Oh he didn't marry it but he loved it very very deeply.

I wondered the same R472.

Also, R405, I didn't agree with everything in your post but did quite like (and agree with) this line:

[quote]This is why American culture is so shallow. They don't care what it is, only how it looks.

I saw there was some disagreement from another poster and would perhaps amend the phrase "or what it tells us it is" to the end of the sentence? I.e. that as long as you look like a thing, or tell people you are a thing, in the US it sometimes seems not to matter if you actually ARE the thing. Meghan is herself a great example of this. How many people fully accept her as a feminist icon simply because she and her PR tell us that's what she is (in spite of her life trajectory having nothing feminist about it)?

R475, Reaching one's 70s so far is not a dystopian automatic death sentence.

You should be so lucky as to find out.

R461, he caught it the first time in March 2020. He's likely got Omicron, which is more contagious. They both test regularly as many public officials do. He's not careless but he has to attend a lot of public events.

My father is Charles' age and MUCH heavier. He got COVID in Jan 2021. From the moment I heard, I assumed he would die. He spent two weeks in the ICU but had no lasting effects. COVID is really Russian Roulette, you never know.

You know Charles will be taking Paxlovid/Ritonavir and possibly other therapies, he'll be fine in a few days.

Ritonavir (Novir) began as a HIV medication, It was a first generation protease inhibitor.

People are upset because Charles selfishly LIED to get permission to marry her, and then went back on his word. A terrible look for his position on top of all of his other recent scandals.

[quote]Bill Clinton cheated on his wife.throughout his marriage and presidency

Bill Clinton has been out of office for over 20 years! His indiscretions are irrelevant in today's modern world unlike Prince Charles Charles who still has a life long job. Not to mention, Presidents actually do the work of the country, not just some figurehead bowing the the whims of Parliament. Also, if you really want to debate morals of past leaders, Bill Clinton was actually sanctioned, investigated, stripped of his law degree and impeached by one side of congress for his actions. I don't see any of that happening with Prince Charles and the Horse Wife.

Just shove it all under the carpet, change the subject, turn the tables and gaslight. The British way.

R488 = "people" = Diana loons. Because apart from the Diana loons, hardly anybody else gives a fuck these days.

R488, I have no idea what you’re taking about. What did Charles lie about?

Anyway, none of us can cheat death.

Oh, it's probably another person who thinks The Crown is one of the Gospels, R491.

[quote]People are upset because Charles selfishly LIED to get permission to marry her,

Wow, gaslighting much? That's not it at all. He didn't just tell a little white lie just to get married. He had an ongoing affair with a woman before, during and after his real marriage. It's not about Diana. It's about his total lack of respect for another human being he said he loved and wanted to spend his life with and have children with. THAT IS WHAT HE SOLD THE PUBLIC. He didn't just have an affair while he was married, he didn't even bother to try. He knew going into it he was just using someone to fill his "royal duties" and put on a show for the public. Could have been any woman, people outside the UK still see that as a very scummy move. A very selfish one. Using someone for show without their knowledge or agreement going into it. And he didn't even pick someone his own age who has been around the block a couple of times, he picked someone just out of high school. But then maybe using people like that OK in British society. Not every culture thinks like that. It's also a pretty shitty dad move too. If you really care about raising your kids, you set the example. Doesn't look like that ever crossed his mind.

I'm Team Diana if I have to make a choice, but it seems less likely than not that Charles was unfaithful during the early years of the marriage. That was when the character and temperamental unsuitability manifested. Charles didn't sell the public the fairy tale, the media did. There is less blame that personal fault in the marriage of Charles and Diana and it is shared between many people.

R477 Whatabouterism is absolutely applicable in this case, as titles are bandied about. If adultery is the standard, then Philip, Margaret, Diana, Edward VII and his idiot son, whose lovers were all married women, should all have been deprived of their royal styles and titles.

Charles' divorced wife is dead. He then married the divorced wife of another. She is his legitimate consecrated wife and if he is to be king, she is rightfully his Queen. His first wife was an enthusiastic adulterer.

This obsession with adultery and morality is comical on a site like DL. No one gives fick all about it, really. It's just the shadow of that oh so photogenic tragic blonde who on reality drove her husband back into his former lover's arms.

The irony is, the adulterous Cornwalls clearly love each other and were each other's ONLY adultery, whilst Diana went on merrily fucking varied parties including a sordid creep of the first order.

Moralism is a slippery slope. Camilla is no less deserving of being Queen at this point than the adulterous Diana would have been if that's the standard.

The First Wales Marriage was on the rocks by the time the honeymoon was over. And it wasn't because of Camilla. It was a perfect storm out of which Charles and Camilla managed to retrieve something decent.

Jesus, you lot all sound like Cotton Mather.

You don't sound moralistic at all, R495. Your evenhandedness speaks for itself.

People embracing or being an apologist for Camilla’s immorality is a sign of the times.

People citing immorality in complex human relationships are a sign of Victorian times.

R493, Charles never said he loved Diana, not even when asked directly by reporters on his honeymoon.

Camilla had Charles after her husband was shagging all and sundry. Diana had her policeman, James Gilbey, James Hewitt, Will Carling, Oliver Hoare at least. Charles and Diana both said in interviews that she was the first to stray and after the marriage had failed. None of the main protagonists had their hearts broken by infidelity. The wives of Dianas' multiple lovers might have a different story.

Who strayed first is a symptom, not the disease. Who strayed first doesn't matter. Someone would have, eventually, because the marriage failed. It was doomed to fail. They were incompatible as partners and neither had the skills or emotional capacity to overcome it. They might have soldiered on in name only but she wasn't able or willing.

r501, I agree , but the sainted Di said there were 3 of us in the marriage and it was a bit crowded.More like 33. The loons will always cast her as virgin victim and Cam as whore. Even though multiple flawed individuals were involved.

[quote] Who strayed first doesn't matter.

Exactly. The essential fact is that Camilla was a homewrecker. People don’t seem to care as much today about the immorality of wantonly being a homewrecker, so that has greatly helped Camilla’s cause.

Well, in fairness, R502, there were three (real or imagined or somewhere in the middle) before there were 33.

Wanton immorality? Who laces your stays?

With what right would reporters even be asking him such a question, r499?

R502 doesn't want to face the fact that her angel heroine was a whore.

I still get a giggle that Di tried to get George Michael into bed. I would have loved to see his face.

She sure couldn't pick 'em. She repulsed a prince, bedded a rogue, stalker an art dealer, got slut shamed by footballer's wife, wore out a heart surgeon, and died next to a ne'er do well.

She was AWESOME!

R505, they asked that when there was an engagement photo op. It’s not exactly secret, and Diana later claimed she was “traumatized” by Charles’ response.

Well, it was probably the first blow to the fantasy she'd cooked up in her head. I have no doubt it was a horrible thing to hear. If you're marrying someone and they are asked if you are in love, there's one answer.

Charles was old enough to realize what a total charade the entire relationship was. He just wasn't quite slick enough to come out with a fake declaration of love in front of the cameras. Diana wasn't in love with him either, just in love with the idea of having a fairytale wedding to a prince.

r493 Diana broke ranks with her wedding vows first. Something repeated in almost ever respected royal biography on her. You are indulging in and repeating fiction.

r503 How can it not matter who strayed first ? You are calling Camilla a homewrecker but who was unfaithful first is key to understanding who is and isn't a homewrecker. Without knowing who strayed first the whole concept of homewrecker is drained of meaning. Your point makes no sense.

R513, Camilla was irrefutably a homewrecker. What other meaning are you looking for?

I hate that phrase. CHARLES was the homewrecker, perhaps. If it weren't for his desires, the affair with Camilla would not have happened.

If Camilla was a homewrecker, Diana was a whore. Deal with it.

It was 40 years ago. Diana has been dead and buried for 25 years.

Time to move on.

r514 Not only is it not irrefutable its arguably untrue. Just asserting she is a homewrecker doesn't make it true. Arguing by assertion when making claims about others isn't really a way of getting to the truth.

Yeah, stating an opinion as an irrefutable fact is the very definition of begging the question.

A homewrecker basically means the other woman. On that score, I guess Camilla was technically a homewrecker.

But realistically home got wrecked because the marriage failed between two wildly incompatible because they were wildly incompatible. Who fucked who first is irrelevant.

If there'd been no Camilla there might not have been a divorce but there would be no marriage in anything but the legal sense. But there's no way of knowing. One of them could have become so miserable they got their divorce anyway. Or they could have still be so locked in the war of the Waleses they did their homewrecking interviews anyway and still got ordered to divorce.

But anybody suggesting the marriage failed because Diana was unfaithful first is missing the obvious why was she unfaithful?

Actually, I meant a homewrecker actually means the other woman who becomes subsequently becomes the wife or partner.

All three (Charles, Diana and Camilla) were/are morally bankrupt.

But I still do believe that IF Charles did love Diana, paid more attention to her, got her the help that she needed etc....her mental problems wouldn't have been so severe and disruptive. I don't think she was so far gone when she was engaged/newly married that she was a hopeless case. Charles and Camilla had an affair BEFORE their engagement, Diana found little trinkets between them. When she voiced her suspicions, Charles lied to her and said she was imaging things. You don't tell someone who is suffering that they're crazy. That's just cruel. She already had problems with trust and abandonment and he didn't help much at all.

If sleeping with a married person makes you a homewrecker, Camilla AND Diana are/were homewreckers. And you either think homewrecking can be excused and/or justified (in which case it can be excused and/or justified by any party, including one you don't like) or you don't. If you don't, again, both were homewreckers.

All three are/were flawed people. Everyone is flawed. They're no different.

I liked Diana. Everyone I know did. I am not a royalist by any measure but she has charisma in spades, and she was gorgeous and seemed down to earth.

Yes, I know a lot of that was just savvy PR on her part. But so is the rather dramatic rehabilitation of Camilla's public image from the 1990s to the present day.

I don't think Charles is an evil person. I don't think that of Camilla, either. I think they're just normal people who made some bad choices early in their lives. Charles is self-centered, but so was Diana. Being married to either one probably wouldn't be a picnic for anyone. This is part of the reason why I've softened into admiration and genuine like for Camilla. She seems to put up with Charles and make him happy, without causing any drama herself.

I think the whole monarchy is nonsense ultimately, but she has as much of a right to be called Queen as any other Queen in UK's history.

I find the whole "Team Diana" thing odd

The thread subject is Camilla and she irrefutably was a homewrecker.

I agree with you R254, that's pretty much my opinion of this as well.

Anyone invoking moral bankruptcy in relation to a marriage freaks me out.

Why R527? I'm R526 so the behaviour of people in a marriage that was doomed from the start isn't something I'm personally going to get too worked up over but it's not exactly outrageous to see the breaking of vows as immoral, is it? Breaking a solemn vow - any solemn vow - doesn't generally speak well of a person's character.

Just feels like fainting couch theatrics to me. Moral bankruptcy! My smelling salts!

R95 Charles had affairs with other women too, it’s just that Camilla hung on the longest. Others like Dale Tryon tried but eventually dropped out of the race. In Kanga’s case….literally.

Sorry, I took exception to the theatrical moral bankruptcy and I'm going to explain why.

I believe Charles and Diana, in their ill-fated, ill-matched marriage, acted out of anger, hurt, frustration but neither acted with wilful cruelty purely for the sake of it. They were not the MacBeths. To me, to knowingly and deliberately cause suffering only for that purpose of causing suffering, that's moral bankruptcy. To act gravely without conscience, in full command and understanding of what you are doing and knowing you could choose otherwise, that's moral bankruptcy. These two seemed always driven by their own suffering, however it manifested. And both had regret for it. Moral bankruptcy attaches to the real evils of humanity throughout history. Moral bankruptcy precludes objective or subjective forgiveness. With these two I argue you saw human frailty, not moral bankruptcy. Cage, trapped, enraged at the futility of their thwarted wants, they failed to see beyond themselves because their driver was not the destruction of the other, but to alleviate their own pain. Don't get me wrong, they did some horrible things in the process but again, out of frailty not strength.

R503 = Margaret Dumont, clutching her pearls.

r522 The royal family did try to get psychological and psychiatric help for Diana but she refused. People can't be forced and I feel sure you aren't suggesting the royal family overrode her wishes and forced her to receive treatment? There seems to be a lot of disneyification and fairytale myths around Diana.

r520 My point wasn't that the marriage failed because Diana cheated first my point is the why did she cheat understanding question and angle should be applied to all in this saga. Those calling Diana an innocent and Camilla and Charles evil, homewreckers etc are only extending that courtesy to one side.

[quote] There seems to be a lot of disneyification and fairytale myths around Diana.

Also a lot of irrational hatred from the anti-Diana loons.

R535, hatred? Zzz ...

Now go say your daily prayers in front of your Diana Angel Altar.

r535 I like both Diana and Camilla but I see no merit in promoting the fiction of saints and monsters. People who put Diana on a pedestal are doing her no favours because that inevitably invites iconoclasm.

[quote] I see no merit in promoting the fiction of saints and monsters

Unfortunately, it appears that the anti-Diana loons are trying to do a lot of promoting here.

In that case, r521, shouldn't Carrie Symonds receive the same greeting as Camilla?

Probably. I can't stand Mrs. Johnson... she's over her skis.

[quote] she's over her skis

Is that a British saying?

My Diana plates.

This thread is hilarious. Who knew Datalounge was populated by so many maiden aunts, staunchly defending monogamy, while deifying a mentally ill, beautiful adulteress and hissing down a less beautiful home-wrecker who appears to have committed the sin of loving two men in her long life?

R540 I also hate the current Mrs. Johnson but I'm not sure that she can be held responsible for breaking up Bojo's 2nd marriage, there was a pretty long list prior to her including Petronella Wyatt who aborted his child.

Bojo's 2nd wife Marina Wheeler broke up his first marriage, it's sort of karma. Marrying your Mistress creates a vacancy.

R511, Diana knew Charles from his dating (auditioning) her sister, among other meetings. She was an aristocrat in love with Charles, not merely a loyal subject "in love" with a fantasy Prince Charming.

The night before the wedding, Charles was seen to board a train with a blonde. Some tabloids suggested it was sexy time for C&D. But other reports claimed the blonde was Camilla. Days later Diana was aghast to find on her honeymoon Charles's cufflinks engraved with "C&C".

Charles was wrong, Charles was hurtful, Charles was deceitful---to Diana. He was bewitched, bothered, and bewildered---by Camilla.

But whattaya gonna do---get all in a moral dither over relationships past and people deceased, simply because some of the parties are still among the living?

I mean, come on! Don't be Rita Moreno still griping about Marlon Brando!

Human relationships are often complicated, with people making poor choices and rushing into predicaments without clear thinking. Ultimately, one has to play the cards one has been dealt, and make the best of the situation. Charles, Camilla and Diana were all guilty of making selfish, rash decisions. I think Camilla has been through an absolute firestorm of public criticism, and has maintained her cool, and she deserves credit for that.

I've always thought that Camilla came out of the storm fairly well, she didn't complain or explain.

The most dignified of the three of them by a mile, if you factor in that her 1st marriage was a disaster.

Considering that all of the action happened 40 years ago, that one of the protagonists has been dead for 25 years and that none of you is going to convince anybody else that they are wrong and that you are right - what is the point of this?

t548: "The point" [italic]is[/italic] of no return! And YOU'VE reached it!

[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.]

R547 was it really? Yeah he was a slut, but there's no sign she and Andrew ever got nasty. He was at her wedding to Charles, and she and Charles went to his second wife's funeral.

[quote]I think Camilla has been through an absolute firestorm of public criticism, and has maintained her cool, and she deserves credit for that.

Maintaining her cool has been part of her problem. Being as cold as ice when she broke up a marriage and figuratively stabbed her rival in the gut was not seen as being something deserving credit.

[quote]Whatabouterism is absolutely applicable in this case

You lost me right there. You are losing your objectivity if that's what you need to make a point. It's a looser argument, you cant handle one issue without clouding it with another.

Not since the Fat German Anne of Cleeves - a/k/a the Flanders Mare - who was both ugly, smelly, and rude

has England been blessed with such a queen as Camilla

Cleves

R503 you fucking simple minded moron. Diana wrecked her own marriage ten times over. Camilla just filled in the gaping wound Diana inflicted on herself. Camilla didn't wreck anything - HMS Wales was already sinking when Charles fled back to Camilla to save his sanity. You notice Charles hasn't cheated on Camilla.

Diana wrecked someone else's marriage too and couldn't manage a single solitary healthy stable lasting relationship with one single man in her entire adult life. And she wouldn't have looked at Charles if he hadn't been prince of Wales.

That bitch was fucking batshit crazy. And she wrecked Harry, too. He's the same ssort of fucking mess she was. Pull your big boy knockers on and join the adults here.

Camilla didn't wreck anything. She just cleaned up the wreck that screaming, demanding, clinical narcissist left. Poor Harry.

You pompous pious hypocrite.

There are no simple truths in any marriage, let alone this one.

And please especially don't be Rita Moreno still griping about Natalie Wood who was somebody who she did one job with 60 years ago and has yet to move on. What the fuck?

Funny people complaining on DL about either of these two women being whores when any half-way decent looking gay man makes the Whore of Babylon look like Erma Bombeck.

Charles wasn't always 73....

I suspect those comments come from fraus, r558.

He still was nothing special to look at R559. Without his title, most would pass.

Poor Camilla, if Charles dies of his second round of Covid, she's going to be put out to pasture before she becomes Queen. 🐴

[QUOTE] who was both ugly, smelly, and rude

Henry VIII stank too. He had syphilis and diabetes sores on his legs that apparently made the courtiers gag. Queen Catherine was the only one would could tolerate it and would bandage his stinky leg, but was only doing so to save her own neck.

When you look at famous examples of a woman stealing another woman’s man, like Camilla did, at least the husband stealers are good looking. Especially compared to Diana, Camilla doesn’t seem to have much allure from what we can see. She must have a helluva regina.

[quote]Poor Camilla, if Charles dies of his second round of Covid, she's going to be put out to pasture before she becomes Queen.

And just like that, the fourth chair wasn't looking quite as empty.

A fag hag does not have to be good looking. Just good company.

Yeah, her appeal was probably just as a drinking buddy as the stare at hot guards.

Amazing the unrequited hatred for a woman who has only been a nice and decent person as Camilla is.

I guess it's better that Diana tried to keep away from being a co-respondent in Will Carling's marriage or went rogue with her numerous other married lovers besides Carling, whose wife had to be persuaded not to include Diana, PoW, as a respondent in a messy divorce.

Camilla would mourn Charles if she died, but I doubt she'd care about not being Queen. She could retire in peace, luxury, and privacy and enjoy her grandkids.

{quote]a woman who has only been a nice and decent person as Camilla is.

LMFAO, its that supposed to be a joke? You Brits sure have a dry sense of humor. She's a run of the mill gold digger and whore, worst part is, she's not even pretty.

^^^ Right, because it all boils down to looks.

And what do you look like, R570?

[quote] If adultery is the standard, then Philip, Margaret, Diana, Edward VII and his idiot son, whose lovers were all married women...

My, R495! I had no idea Margaret and Diana were so adventurous.

If Camilla were to never become queen, her obituary will state that she was best known for being the woman who came between Charles and Diana. Becoming King Charles’ queen consort is the only thing that is going to top and push that aside.

If Charles dies before acceding then Camilla would continue to be The Duchess of Cornwall, although if/when William is crowned Prince of Wales (by HM The Queen in this unlikely scenario) then Kate would theoretically be The Duchess of Cornwall and Camilla would be The Dowager Duchess of Cornwall, or Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. However Kate would be The Princess of Wales so maybe they’d let sleeping dogs lie and leave Camilla as is.

R556= raving lunatic

Amdrew Parker Bowles and Princess Anne had a brief affair before either married. It was a small circle. But yes, Camilla;s husband slept with Charles' sister.

APB wasn't a beauty but he was smart, witty, aggressive and an insatiable horndog. Most of the women in that social set ended up sleeping with him either before or after he married Camilla.

The hypocrisy of the people who castigate Camilla for her infidelity with one man but venerate Diana despite her infidelities with multiple men, including at least one instance in which the affair "broke up his home" (as they love to say about Camilla, ad nauseam), is, um... interesting.

Your idol had feet of clay, and actively participate. in much of her own misery. The rest of the world was able to accept this years ago. Why can't you?

R570 You Americans sure don't know much about Britain.

She comes from a distinguished family, didn't need money or a career, was already part of Charles's social set, including court circles and far from being new to it all, her great-grest-grandmother was one of his great-great grandfather's best known society mistresses.

She married a man she was genuinely inova with after Charles, they had kids, and he cheated on her frequently and ruthlessly.

Both her and Charles' marriage were over at the same time and that's when their pre-marital affair was reignited. She was about as one-run of the mill as it gets

You judge a run of the mill golddighing wbore by looking at a real one: say, a 36 year old divorced d-list actress on the brink of professional oblivion, still hungering for fame and celebrity, no husband, no kids, and.no future, on the hunt since 2015 for a high-profile British man.

That's what a run if the mill golddigging whore looks like.

r578, if you and others are making it your life’s mission to cleanse the history and reputation of Camilla, you’re fighting a losing battle. All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten the rottweiler’s paw.

All of us have been transfixed by someone who’s not especially attractive but there’s something about them… My soul mate isn’t a hunk, but I don’t ever want to spend a day without him. Especially as you get older, someone’s personality becomes more important than their looks.

Frankly, I think she’s more tolerable than HE Is.

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

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

The once-she's-dead stories are getting a bit unseemly. Let's hope it's Maul playing games because otherwise, it's tacky.

R580 - And all the logic in the world won't disguise your pathological hatred and your pathetic idolatry of a woman whose mental instability destroyed her marriage before it was off the ground.

Go read another Barbara Cartland novel. It's about the level of your teenaged moral compass.

"Friends of Prince Harry have warned his no-holds barred book will lay bare his true feelings towards his step-mother Camilla and is likely to 'shake the monarchy to its core'."

I'm a bit surprised he still has any.

R575=Barbara Cartland's ghost

Seems an odd choice for Harry to antagonize the one person in his family who still seems to have patience for him.

Oh, and R580? Her reputation is already doing fine. She's been representing the monarchy and Britain solidly and successfully for 15 years, she's made her husband happy, earned the respect of the Queen, and should Charles outlive his mother, will be Queen herself.

It's already been successfully redeemed, moron. If you're waiting for the torches and pitchforks to come for her, don't hold your breath.

R589 - River, is that you?

Wait, wait, wait, wait.... I thought two things were hard and fast. First, when "friends" speak, there's an understanding it's with approval. Second, "friends" aren't going to be speaking on behalf of the Sussexes.

R590 - Is that you, Rev. Mather?

The fanatic misogyny here is truly staggering. Are there any adults in the room looking at two people finding comfort in each other's arms in the midst of two miserable marriages, and spouses who bear a large part of the responsibility for those miserable marriages?

Anyone would think this is early America with the Pilgrims in charge, people whose unbending morality you lot would reject wholesale in any other case.

Say, why not suggest that Camilla be forced to attend her coronation with a big red A embroidered on her gown?

The same vicious hate on view here could have come right out of Hawthorne's condemnation of public moral hypocrisy.

So it's interesting, this concept of misogynists locked in a contest where it's a choice between two women, but, you see what you want to see.

Sorry, I only had the once sentence to add.

R592 - again, is that you River? You didn't answer my question.

Princess Dianas close friend says Camilla is the right partner for Charles.

In Camilla's Wiki entry, it's reported that her parents sent out the wedding invitations (800 of them -- included on the guest list: the Queen, the Queen Mother, and Anne)[italic] before [/italic] the proposal as a way of getting Andrew to pop the question. Interesting. It sounded like THE society wedding of the year.

Where did all of these superior-feeling moralistic finger waggers come from? Did Mumsnet have a bowel movement and excrete them? They seem to have the same understanding of the human heart as they do nuclear engineering. Or perhaps they're crazier harridans than their heroine...

R579 gee are you from Britain? We couldn't tell because of the obvious racism 🙄

[quote] In Camilla's Wiki entry, it's reported that her parents sent out the wedding invitations (800 of them -- included on the guest list: the Queen, the Queen Mother, and Anne) before the proposal as a way of getting Andrew to pop the question.

Andrew popped the question?? Didn't that upset Charles?

R598, r596 was obviously referring to Camilla's first marriage to Andrew Parker Bowles. It may well have been the society wedding of that year.

[quote]Anyone would think this is early America with the Pilgrims in charge, people whose unbending morality you lot would reject wholesale in any other case.

It's been pointed out that the opposite is true. The increasing willingness of the public to accept Camilla's sabotaging the marriage of Charles and Diana and to forgive Camilla's immorality has boosted her standing. The public morality is bending, not unbending.

[quote]R579] gee are you from Britain? We couldn't tell because of the obvious racism 🙄

If this poster is an American, she is so exquisitely clueless, she doesn't understand the unintentional irony of the statement and wouldn't get it if it were explained to her six ways to Sunday.

The coronation could def be shortened. If the consort gets crowed kneeling, they both could. Leaving out St. Edward’s chair entirely might be a step too far tho.