King Charles coronation

There was a discussion on a social media platform recently where the posters - strangely, all men - were wishing all kinds of ill towards her, some of it quite violent. Fortunately, I doubt the couple delve into these platforms, so will not be aware of the extent of some of the hatred. Who knew the activities of an ex-royal - even the black sheep of the family, could inspire such loathing. They have little to no effect on most people's lives, I just don't get it.

I'm very obviously not condoning it but it's nothing new or special for H&M. Look at all the hatred Mary Beard received including threats of rape and torture.... and JK Rowling... amongst others. There are keyboard warriors everywhere.

Would probably be for the best if they were invited, but decided not to come as ‘it clashes with Archie’s birthday’.

Am sure Charles and Camilla especially would be relieved if they decided not to attend, one less thing to stress about apart from the obvious problems of wearing crowns and having to sit around for ages and not being able to nip to the loo.

Chestnut

I don't think H&M attending the coronation would create a publicity furore in the media. One or both have attended Philip's funeral, the Jubilee and the Queen's funeral without any problems. The press did not highlight them above the others.

What will be a problem is how the public behave and that is why they should stay away. You cannot control the public, and some people do not care about the consequences of their behaviour. If they boo and throw eggs or even worse that would be disastrous on the day. So if they have any sense whatsoever they should stay away. Although in their deluded world they might think the Brits love them!

Although in their deluded world they might think the Brits love them!

They might believe there's a small coterie of Brits who support them, but I doubt (if they read any comments on articles in the British press) they are left in any doubt as to the hatred that is felt towards them, especially Meghan.

There was a discussion on a social media platform recently where the posters - strangely, all men - were wishing all kinds of ill towards her, some of it quite violent. Fortunately, I doubt the couple delve into these platforms, so will not be aware of the extent of some of the hatred.

Who knew the activities of an ex-royal - even the black sheep of the family, could inspire such loathing. They have little to no effect on most people's lives, I just don't get it.

Clarkson could be in the crowd with a bucket of excrement😲

On further consideration, maybe Harry could get away with attending (as he did for the two funerals) but definitely not Meghan.

I don't think H&M attending the coronation would create a publicity furore in the media. One or both have attended Philip's funeral, the Jubilee and the Queen's funeral without any problems. The press did not highlight them above the others.

What will be a problem is how the public behave and that is why they should stay away. You cannot control the public, and some people do not care about the consequences of their behaviour. If they boo and throw eggs or even worse that would be disastrous on the day. So if they have any sense whatsoever they should stay away. Although in their deluded world they might think the Brits love them!

Lucca

*the question of his being anointed with sacred Holy Oil is a sticky one*

😂

thanks, Lucca, ! ha ha

Whatever they do or don’t do is going to attract attention, if they want attention H&M will attend, then complain how badly they have been treated.

EMMF1948

bevisp1

I’m reading today that Charles will be insisting that Harry & Meghan will be invited to his Coronation next year… but why? So they may still whinge & moan and take sneaky pictures for maybe another forthcoming battering of the royal family, moan that all the family will be so cold towards them, that no one is friendly towards them. Charles do your best and don’t invite them, they probably wouldn’t attend anyway..

If he doesn't then they'll have another dollar making whinge-fest, this was he avoids that but if they have any sense at all they will stay away, I don't think the public will be so welcoming.

If he doesn't then they'll have another dollar making whinge-fest, this was he avoids that but if they have any sense at all they will stay away, I don't think the public will be so welcoming.

If he attends with Meghan - or without - the tabloids will publish endless photo's of him (especially if Meghan does attend) while he is here. And the readers will say "why is he making himself the centre of attention?"

If he doesn't attend, there will be endless speculation about the reasons, and the media will wheel out all the columnists, journo's etc to tell us why and that either he should have attended, or he should not have attended. There will of course be the usual royal Watchers, Commenters, Experts, and those sources 'close to the Royal Family... each with their own take on the matter.

Of course, the media could make this coronation about Charles, by giving M&H a low-profile and focusing on the event, this moment in our history.

And pigs might be able to fly. The media knows what it is doing and although I personally think M&H are immature and self-indulgent, Harry is not wrong to be wary of it.

bevisp1

I’m reading today that Charles will be insisting that Harry & Meghan will be invited to his Coronation next year… but why? So they may still whinge & moan and take sneaky pictures for maybe another forthcoming battering of the royal family, moan that all the family will be so cold towards them, that no one is friendly towards them. Charles do your best and don’t invite them, they probably wouldn’t attend anyway..

If he doesn't then they'll have another dollar making whinge-fest, this was he avoids that but if they have any sense at all they will stay away, I don't think the public will be so welcoming.

Mollygo

^Perhaps because she got some very timely advice from Charles' press office about how to behave and what not to do.^
How very rude and dismissive of older people’s ability to make judgements of their own about correct behaviour or to demonstrate good manners without having to be told.

*Camilla has been hanging around since before Diana's death- so at least 30+ years. Was she an older person then? Because that's when she was told what to do, when to be seen, what to join, when to speak. I'm sure her manners have always been good, but transforming her from the much reviled mistress, one of the "three in this marriage" into the beloved consort has been a PR exercise from the start. And it worked!

We should not have a monarchy in the 21st century.

the question of his being anointed with sacred Holy Oil is a sticky one

😂

Katie59

The whole Royal set up was to blame, Charles was in love with
Camilla long before Diana came on the scene, he was forbidden to marry her, but couldn’t let go. Diana, the only eligible Protestant female that wanted the job but she was far to young and naive to say no.

I was going to say something similar.

“Lovely for you two to have a fling, but this absolutely cannot end in marriage,” Prince Charles’s great uncle Lord Mountbatten advised him... allegedly.

It's all speculation (particularly on my part) but one assumes Camilla wasn't perceived as suitable - too "experienced" as Sally Bedell Smith (a Royal Biographer) put it.

So Camilla married Mr P-B, and Charles 'dated' until he met Diana. Thirteen years younger, innocent, naïve - but just the right sort of 'nice gel' from the right background to produce heirs.

'The Firm' were complicit in the arrangement. A tragic end for Diana. And Charles married the woman he probably wanted to marry back in the 70s.

X post Sparklefizz

faye17

Absolutely Gloria's, Camilla's been in the washing machine for years in preparation for her position as Charles'wife/Queen consort/queen.
The monarchy allow the gutter press to endlessly sully Megan Markle as it keeps attention off the real issue which is that two groomers of a young Diana are now to be rewarded with the highest titles in the land.

which is that two groomers of a young Diana are now to be rewarded with the highest titles in the land.

The two people who planned the romance between Charles and Diana are both dead now.
His and her grandmothers were the ones who drove their romance forward as Camilla was considered to be not suitable as a bride for the heir to the throne.
He was sent away to sea and she was shunted off and married someone else.

Charles tried, and arranged marriages can often turn out well but it was a disaster waiting to happen.

Katie59

The whole Royal set up was to blame, Charles was in love with
Camilla long before Diana came on the scene, he was forbidden to marry her, but couldn’t let go. Diana, the only eligible Protestant female that wanted the job but she was far to young and naive to say no.

Actually Camilla went off and married someone else (Andrew Parker Bowles) while Charles was away at sea, so she didn't persevere with Charles anyway.

Of course Camilla has been advised to keep schtum.
It is the least she is behoved to do given her past conduct - well-documented.
My comment has nothing to do with age Mollgo, nor had Glorianny's.
My comment was on your seemingly harsh judgement of Glorianny's suggestion that Camilla had been coached
It made me wonder how you would describe the well-documented behaviour of C&C towards the teenage Diana.

I fear it was you .Mollygo who missed the point.

Furthermore this is a speculative forum as none of us have first-hand knowledge of what goes on in the royal family.
We do however have our individual opinions and I for one enjoy hearing others opinions whether I agree or nay.

The whole Royal set up was to blame, Charles was in love with
Camilla long before Diana came on the scene, he was forbidden to marry her, but couldn’t let go. Diana, the only eligible Protestant female that wanted the job but she was far to young and naive to say no.

Mollygo

You’re missing the point faye17.
I didn’t comment on the behaviour of any of the royals. I wasn’t there so I have no more first hand knowledge than you do about what went on.
There could well be protocol about what they may or may not say publicly-unsuccessful in several cases.
I just think it’s rude to say that older people need telling what to say or how to have good manners. I don’t know you or any on GN, so I don’t know if you feel you or they need that sort of instruction.

I just think it’s rude to say that older people need telling what to say or how to have good manners.

It's probably just as "rude" to suggest that any adult needs telling what to say or how to have good manners if we're talking about the principle. Older people are not immune to being bad-mannered.

You’re missing the point faye17.
I didn’t comment on the behaviour of any of the royals. I wasn’t there so I have no more first hand knowledge than you do about what went on.
There could well be protocol about what they may or may not say publicly-unsuccessful in several cases.
I just think it’s rude to say that older people need telling what to say or how to have good manners. I don’t know you or any on GN, so I don’t know if you feel you or they need that sort of instruction.

You know, that's partially why I come here. For the clever adult conversations and the well-thought-out criticisms.

At least there's no schoolgirl-level personal insults. That would be so awful.

volver

I've been keeping a video diary for years, just to annoy GNers.

You don’t need a video diary to do that.

Mollygo

^Perhaps because she got some very timely advice from Charles' press office about how to behave and what not to do.^
How very rude and dismissive of older people’s ability to make judgements of their own about correct behaviour or to demonstrate good manners without having to be told.

But if you are going to a part of 'The Firm', you definitely will be "schooled" and 'advised' - regardless of your age.

Anyway, protocol dictates that members of the RF do not enter into public debates, generally, about their behaviour.

Watching the TV interview with Andrew back in, whenever it was, one can see why. Even the Mail described it as "disastrous" (they attacked him for not showing any sympathy for Epstein's victims). Guilty or not, a 'dignified silence' would have been a far better option.

I don't know who 'advised' him on that occasion, but it was a big, fat FAIL.

Pass me the smelling salts