Camilla-Queen Consort?

Petera Meghan lied about her wedding. She said the Archbishop of Canterbury married them in the garden three days before the wedding in Windsor. She said ‘that spectacle’ was just for the public, but they actually got married ‘just the three of us’ in the garden three days before. This caused the Archbishop of Canterbury immense embarrassment as it’s illegal in Britain to get married anywhere unless the place is registered to do marriages and additionally by law there must two witnesses to any marriage.
Additionally she lied about Archie’s title. She said that the royal family refused him the title of Prince because of his skin colour. In actual fact Archie is not eligible for the title of prince because his grandparent is not the monarch. When Charles becomes king Archie will automatically become a prince and be able to use that title if he so wishes. Williams’s first child, George was entitled to be titled prince upon his birth because he is in the direct line to the throne. However his sister Charlotte and brother Louis were not entitled to be titled princess/prince until the Queen changed the Letters of Patent which then entitled to use those titles.
Meghan may well have lied about other things, but these two lies in particular, are the most glaring.

i think he probably believes it's true when he says it.
he is not very intellectual.
he is probably not used to critically examining the status of ideas, memories, let alone being self critical in a logical way.
i think he could be easily persuaded that his parents neglected him.

maddyone

But we do know that Meghan lies. She lied in her Oprah interview. If that’s what we’re judging people on.

I haven't seen it. What did she lie about?

Actually Harry lies too. He said his parents never took him out on a bicycle ride, but then lots of pictures emerged of Harry out cycling with his parents.

But we do know that Meghan lies. She lied in her Oprah interview. If that’s what we’re judging people on.

Josieann

I agree with maddyone.
There were quite a few attacks here on GN about opinions formed of Meghan after the Oprah interview. The accusations were that posters couldn't possibly comment about someone they had never met, despite us clearly witnessing Meghan's every facial expression and listening to her every spoken word. No one needed to know her to form an opinion, it was all there loud and clear, and in glorious technicolour. Infact Meghan was doing pretty much the same as Boris spouting in the House, which quite rightly draws posters to judge and to form opinions. The same rules should be applied in a smaller or wider sense.
You can learn a lot from observation of people.

Except it's a lot more nuanced than that. And I'm saying this as someone who has no opinion about which side is 'right', if either.

We don't only judge Johnson on his behaviour in the House; we judge him in his policies and his lying.

And any appearance of a member of the RF on the media, with the possible exception of PA in his 'I think that went quite well' interview, is so carefully stage managed that we can draw no reliable opinion from it.

It's also true that Meghan may be a deplorable person, I have no idea, but that doesn't make her wrong.

I agree with maddyone.
There were quite a few attacks here on GN about opinions formed of Meghan after the Oprah interview. The accusations were that posters couldn't possibly comment about someone they had never met, despite us clearly witnessing Meghan's every facial expression and listening to her every spoken word. No one needed to know her to form an opinion, it was all there loud and clear, and in glorious technicolour. Infact Meghan was doing pretty much the same as Boris spouting in the House, which quite rightly draws posters to judge and to form opinions. The same rules should be applied in a smaller or wider sense.
You can learn a lot from observation of people.

I agree with that Dickens. We judge ‘celebrities’ by their documented actions or words. But I’ve often seen on royal threads posters saying to another poster that they shouldn’t say this or that because we don’t know them. This has been particularly evident on threads about Meghan and Harry, so I’m saying no, we don’t know them but we can form a valid opinion based on their words/actions. Indeed I never knew the Queen Mother, but I’ve read enough about her to believe that she was a snob and not particularly likeable. That’s my impression based on things I’ve read, but I didn’t ever know her personally.

maddyone

I agree with you Josieann and that is exactly why I covered my back by saying in my opinion and also that I don’t know her, but I’ve seen her behaviour. I wouldn’t think that a single poster on here personally knows Boris Johnson or Novak Djokovic or indeed a host of other well known people, even indeed the Queen, but I don’t see people’s opinions on them/their behaviour being berated because they don’t know them personally. However with Meghan, and to a lesser extent Harry, posters have regularly been told that since they don’t know them, they know nothing about them.

You're right - we don't know any of the people you've mentioned.

We judge them by what we know they do and what they say - not necessarily by what others (including the media) tell us they do or say. If you see what I mean.

Some of those you mention though are on record - we can look at what they've said - Boris Johnson, Harry - and not have to rely on here-say. We still may not know them in the true sense of the word, but their comments and statements does give us some clues about them.

That’s my impression too.

I have read several books about the Queen Mother. My overall impression is that she was not as sweet and friendly as was made out.

The Queen Mother did not start the abdication process, 1936
the Church did not accept divorce . In my opinion she was the choice of wife for Edward , he wouldn’t marry her so she married the second brother,

I agree with you Josieann and that is exactly why I covered my back by saying in my opinion and also that I don’t know her, but I’ve seen her behaviour. I wouldn’t think that a single poster on here personally knows Boris Johnson or Novak Djokovic or indeed a host of other well known people, even indeed the Queen, but I don’t see people’s opinions on them/their behaviour being berated because they don’t know them personally. However with Meghan, and to a lesser extent Harry, posters have regularly been told that since they don’t know them, they know nothing about them.

The last Queen Consort was a nasty piece of work so even the Camilla haters cant think she'll be that bad.

Auld Lizzie as my granny called her ,used the treasury as "her piggy bank" according to high profile tories of her time,she was so right wing that she admired Hitler and openly said she didn;t like Jews . She misled the UK and the world by letting them believe she stayed in London for the duration of the war and that they lived on the same "rations " as the rest of us.She was a functioning drunk . She was the person who started the whole abdication process ,NOT the government of the day .
All information is available online and in at least one book ,for the life of me I cant remember his name but it begins with W .
Anyone still think Camilla is the wrong woman for the job.....lo .
Of course I am anti Royalty so I couldn't care less.I would like to see them all gone.

Cue the royalists who'll say ,Ah but it was a different time

How much is that per word then lemsip?

Harry will have to spill a considerable lot of beans to get paid as much as stated
......................................

'Prince Harry nabs $20M from Penguin Random House for memoir'

Nothing to do with your direct questioning Lucca!

Note: I am going to stop writing this daft business of "who knows," "we don't know", "I believe" etc because it is only being used to cover ourselves. I think the practice of berating posters on every opinion they give on here is past and general discussion or chat can resume.

I did wonder that Lucca. He hasn't named anyone in his tirade to sell his book, but we know he himself has criticised his father lots, and that will take up several chapters! It maybe stands to reason that Camilla would be included, not necessarily in a nasty way towards her, but criticising her very existence at some point? However, if Mr. Pick and Choosy leaves Camilla without any criticism, then as usual is he actually telling the truth or working on a variety of recollections? Who knows?

But does he say directly he will criticise Camilla ???

Otherwise it is the media……

But it's not the media telling us this, is it Petera? Its Prince Harry himself with his statement on the Archewell site. He says everything about his life will be revealed, the highs and lows, all the mistakes, the lessons learned, you can't get closer to the horse's mouth than that.

Anniebach

It has been reported that Harry will criticise Camilla in his book.

...but you don't believe the media.

lemsip

just read this on news........

............Meghan Markle, 40, was branded 'that minx' by the Duchess of Cornwall
Camilla 'found it hard to believe' the Duchess of Sussex would 'silently serve'
Royal biographer Tom Bower has claimed the two women never saw eye-to-eye
Added Camilla thought the former actress was 'a self-seeking troublemaker'

Camilla has gone even higher in my estimation.

I just love the language.
Camilla saw 'straight through' the 'former actress',
'that minx'!
Wow.
Straight out of the 1930s.
I would imagine Camilla's language is rather more descriptive.

I don't think Camilla would have gone to any great lengths to win over The Queen or any other member of the RF for that matter. She seems to be very much her own person. Maybe they like her on a personal level.