Camilla-Queen Consort?

maddyone

The evidence is there Petera but if you choose to disbelieve it, that of course is your right. I have given perfectly acceptable and rigorous evidence, as have others.
I do wonder why you choose to disbelieve it though.

choose to disbelieve or disbelieve. There - fixed that for you.

The rigorous evidence presented so far includes several "Oh come on" arguments and amateur body language expertise.

Maybe you could wonder a bit more out loud about your final sentence, I have no idea what you're thinking, why you are thinking it and why you believe that it's germane.

But please try not to be judgmental. It's not a good look.

Did someone say german?
Blödsinn!

JillyJosie2

Judging someone from watching them on tv, even in an interview as opposed to a documentary, isn't some kind of neutral exercise. It's a judgmental forming of opinion from your own cultural, educational, generational and possibly professional background. How often have High Court judges got it wrong, how have judgments changed over the last 100 years often against the wishes of senior judges who were people from a particular background, education, class and time.

I don't really care and I can't be bothered to watch an hour and a half YouTube video but Meghan looks pretty young to me. A young American will have a totally different attitude to life and emotional depths which your average English person, especially one over 50 will find hard to grasp. Of course she would have wanted to fit in, I suppose the ogres who run the royal household would have tried to get their mitts on her but I think she looks the image of a young Diana who also got it in the neck for not meekly bowing to her husband's mistress or the revolting racism and privilege of the Royals.

As used to be said, thank goodness the great British public doesn't have access to the death penalty. We'd have gallows in the streets in no time. Honestly, just look at yourselves.

Meghan will be 41 this year. She is not a young naive girl, she's a smart well-educated woman who had her own career and a previous marriage before she met Harry.
She is nothing like Diana was.

Meghan was nothing like Diana. She wanted to change the way things were done in the RF. Didn’t succeed but managed to change Harry.

Of course Diana and Meghan are nothing alike!
Diana was shy and forced into the limelight.
She was so quiet that her sisters’ nickname was Dutch, after a doll (ie it doesn’t speak).
Meghan is a not great actor who wants to be as famous as possible.
You’ve got to hand it to her for how well she has done.

…the ogres who run the royal household…..
Hmmmmm evidence? How does anyone know what the people are like who work in the royal household?

Petera, you may choose to believe or choose to disbelieve the facts which have been put before you. You apparently don’t want to watch the interview which a previous poster has put up for you, nor apparently did your Google search throw up anything about the Queen having Letters of Patent altered, or the fact that great grandchildren of the monarch are not automatically styled prince or princess. In fact ( another fact for you) Prince Edward’s children, who are very much entitled to be styled prince and princess, and who are grandchildren (not great grandchildren) of the monarch do not use the titles prince or princess. Nor do any of the monarch’s great grandchildren, apart from Williams’s children. The reason for their being different should be self evident. It’s absolutely clear that you have no desire to face the facts. That’s your choice. Asking posters to provide evidence and then declining to look at the evidence or disbelieve it is also entirely your choice.

maddyone

^…the ogres who run the royal household…..^
Hmmmmm evidence? How does anyone know what the people are like who work in the royal household?

Petera, you may choose to believe or choose to disbelieve the facts which have been put before you. You apparently don’t want to watch the interview which a previous poster has put up for you, nor apparently did your Google search throw up anything about the Queen having Letters of Patent altered, or the fact that great grandchildren of the monarch are not automatically styled prince or princess. In fact ( another fact for you) Prince Edward’s children, who are very much entitled to be styled prince and princess, and who are grandchildren (not great grandchildren) of the monarch do not use the titles prince or princess. Nor do any of the monarch’s great grandchildren, apart from Williams’s children. The reason for their being different should be self evident. It’s absolutely clear that you have no desire to face the facts. That’s your choice. Asking posters to provide evidence and then declining to look at the evidence or disbelieve it is also entirely your choice.

I think the post above comes across as being pretty judgmental, as another poster wrote. No wait, it was you who wrote it.

Ogres? From what her staff said, Meghan was one of those.

Not judgemental Petera just factual.

Oh come on, evidence? Very few of any of us have incontrovertible evidence! Our view of the Royals, if you can be bothered about them, comes from what we read or see on the box.
Just Google 'who runs the royal household' and you'll get all sorts of gossip magazines, tabloids, interviews with former members of the royal household and occasionally one of them spills the beans (which they sign never to do when they join the 'firm') and then they get frozen out forever. I think one lady in waiting of the Queen did so and there was Paul whatisname, Diana's butler amongst a few.

I did once come across a female police protection officer who had worked with the Royals and she did tell me a few stories which I'm afraid I can't remember. They were partly about Charles and Andrew and how petty they are about their personal servants remembering all the little peccadillos of their existence. There was a story of Prince William being such a charming young man when he was underage but learning to drive at Sandringham. Oh, and in private, Charles has a fantastic sense of humour. Is that evidence? What would evidence be?

As for Meghan and Diana, I see them as alike in that they are both innocents dragged into a dysfunctional family who are incredibly rich, badly behaved, over privileged and unable to maintain close relationships with others of the sort that raises non dysfunctional children.

I did read the other day that Kate M and William are giving George the choice of being a boarder or not (unlike H and W packed off to boarding school at 8!) and that he's likely going to a co-ed day school so that Charlotte can follow him and then they are both going to Marlborough, Kate's old school.
Times change, how refreshing.

“As for Meghan and Diana, I see them as alike in that they are both innocents dragged into a dysfunctional family who are incredibly rich, badly behaved, over privileged and unable to maintain close relationships with others of the sort that raises non dysfunctional children. “

Not sure that the Royal family is any more dysfunctional than either of their families - you might need to research that a little ....

Now where would I research that?

In the exact same places you found evidence of dysfunctionality of the royal family of course....read the books, interviews, articles, gossip columns.

It’s all there for those looking to find it.

Well pantglas, then you will come up with one opinion and I will have another apart from if I consult the ex personal protection office who told me a few stories. It's fine to have opinions, I just goggle at the vile things some people say on the basis of gossip about people they've never met!

Agreed about respecting different opinions but I’d never base mine solely on the confidentiality breaking gossip of an ex personal protection officer.

Suggestions that the Royals are dysfunctional because you side with Meghan/Diana seems daft to me given the gossip about the Markles and the Spencers.

I think Diana was definitely naive and innocent. But Meghan was very street wise and worldly wise when she agreed to marry Prince Harry. She may have got a shock when she realised the rigid protocol that went with being a member of the Royal family and I totally understood her wish to step back from it all.
But I don't think she and Diana were in anyway alike.

The crown and constitution are no longer abstract debates. The need for an elected president has become urgent now Boris Johnson’s arrival in Downing Street tests conventions, laws and civil rights beyond their limits. John Major expressed that constitutional outrage eloquently on these pages, listing Johnson’s abuses: deliberately breaking international law; tearing up the ministerial code; ordaining police stop and search “without any cause for suspicion”; removing British citizenship at whim, while waging war against the civil service and the BBC, those national safeguards.

Our monarchy has handed all royal prerogative to the prime minister with no check or balance, bar a House of Lords almost as weak as the monarch for the same bad reason – lacking the authority of election. Look how Johnson engages in voter suppression: his proposals for compulsory photo ID and abolishing colleges registering their students will deliberately deter the young and poor from voting. Look how he moves to curb the electoral commission’s power to prosecute illegal political donations protecting his own party’s pelf. There is no brake on an errant prime minister in a country without a written constitution, where a warped electoral system denies fair representation and there is no effective head of state to guard against law-breaking. The unelected Queen must do what the prime minister tells her to.

The constitutional problem is not the monarch’s power, but powerlessness. Presidents around Europe protect constitutions and guard against overmighty politicians breaking basic law. A president would have stopped Johnson illegally proroguing parliament: it takes the authority of election to take action as a vital backstop in a constitutional emergency.

Clearly Britain loses more than it gains from the monarchy. Let us be brave and end it

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/17/britain-monarchy-end-royal-jubilee?fbclid=IwAR2r5E-r5zpnLMHLZytPDuTqVJ69Fvpo0gm1N6G5iBCl2Q1pxtewlawZ6L4

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

A president would have stopped Johnson . . .
Are all presidents so good? Like Trump, or Ceausescu?

Are all monarchies so good? There no such thing as a good monarchy. A president is elected, plenty really good ones.

Do name those Presidents grany

Nelson Mandela is generally considered to have been a good President, I think.

Every time this thread title catches my eye I can hear Freddie Mercury singing “She’s Camilla Queen”

As you were,

The last three Irish Presidents have been good. I can’t remember their names but two of them were women.