'Queen Camilla'?

Why does it matter? The whole world knows how it all panned out.
What difference does a title or not make ? At its core It is just a descriptive word conveying an assumed, or bestowed ‘position’
It isn’t harmful, it’s a little bit silly , but possibly helpful to the postman , the baker & the candlestick maker🤭

I think the slave trade furore is a red herring.

Everybody - everybody - profited from the slave trade. A register was released a few years ago that showed that anybody with the slightest bit of spare money had shares in slavery.

icanhandthemback

Anniebach

Diana’s treatment of other women is acceptable?

No but 2 wrongs don't make a right. Diana was obviously a damaged person and her behaviour was probably unsettling for anybody who was used to a different sort of behaviour. I would suspect that her early years and loss of her mother would have given her mental health issues she would have needed a lot of help to overcome. Using her to produce an heir and spare would have just damaged her more. In any other walk of life we'd be horrified but because it is Royalty it appears to be ok.

Using her to produce an heir and spare would have just damaged her more. In any other walk of life we'd be horrified but because it is Royalty it appears to be ok.

Thing is though, it's because they are royalty that they operate like this, isn't it?

In any other walk of life people normally just get married to whoever it is that they want to be with regardless of their background.

Allegedly Lord Mountbatten advised Charles re Camilla, "lovely for you two to have a fling, but this absolutely cannot end in marriage."

The male heir is supposed to have sown his wild oats and then settle down with a virgin who is above reproach in order to produce more heirs.

The King of Norway waited 9 years to marry the woman of his choice (Sonja) because she was a 'commoner' and his father objected. Harald dug in his heels and informed his father that if he couldn't marry Sonja, he wouldn't marry anyone and then there'd be no heirs anyway. Good on him!

They appear to be a happy couple in old age...

4.bp.blogspot.com/-nGmywJYHh1o/W4dH-UmaqsI/AAAAAAAAlI0/ZrLuhL6IoO4rlXRkupIQR1IZsOR8o9epwCLcBGAs/s1600/hs1.jpg

As a republican, I cannot get excited about Camilla’s title. The newspapers ( at least the socialist ones) are currently full of articles about how the royal family benefited from the slave trade. I don’t see how the descendants of slaves can possibly be compensated for their ancestors’misery at the hands of the aristos who owned them. Any more than I can be compensated for my working class ancestors’ miserable lives slaving as agricultural labourers, who were thrown out of tied cottages when they were too old or ill to work and condemned to the workhouses. Or my mill worker ancestors: my own grandmother was made at the age of 10 to give up school for three days a week to work in a mill. I won’t start on my grandfather, injured working as a docker and thrown on the scrap heap. It’s time the royal family gave up their unearned riches to benefit the beleaguered working class. Rant over, sorry.

I know, it my own fault.

I always give people the benefit of the doubt and assume that they have the sense they are born with. I tend to assume that people can assimilate humour and understand references back to earlier posts.

I'm so often disappointed. 😞

volver3. 12:42

Is a tart worse than a trollop?

Discussion on Camilla and Diana.
Your post V3.

And repeating lies re that telephone conversation.

Why do people constantly refer back to a private conversation between two lovers that took place over 20 years ago, and use that private conversation to judge them by. Its quite ridiculous and again none of our business. Have these same judgmental people never had intimate conversations that they themselves would not wish for others to hear? The people who are disgraceful are the hackers who got into this conversation and sold it to the gutter press.

Overlook what behaviour? A mistress becomes a wife? It happens all the time these days so hardly a hanging offense and actually none of our business. As for an annuity! I think you'll find the RF have plenty of their own wealth and houses to not to rely on handouts.

Like NiceGranny I remember the conversations regarding Camillas tampon. Not a fan of any of them.

I agree, she I just a mistress that usurped a wife.

It seems that many people need the 'royals' to make their world feel safe and I find it amazing that people a) have such short memories and b) overlook behaviour from these people that they would find totally unacceptable in any other circumstance.

Personally I think they should all be pensioned off and given a (one) house to live in and an annuity.

Pushed Raine, threw herself

Anniebach

Diana pushed Raine down the stairs

No “threw” Raine down the stairs!

Mollygo

When I first got married, by convention, I was supposed to be known as Mrs Molly Go, because my MIL was the real Mrs Go.
My MIL told me I was Mrs Go as soon as I married her son, and not to be silly!

Surely by those conventions when you married Son you became Mrs Son Go? And only became Mrs Molly Go if you were divorced or Son died?

Conventions, I might add, that we are well rid of.

Matilda, daughter and only surviving heir of Henry 1st, could be counted in amongst the sovereign Queens. Although her cousin Stephen immediately had himself crowned upon Henry's death, certain nobles did support Matilda and England descended into civil war. This finally ended with Stephens victory ( both his sons were dead) with the proviso that upon his death, Matilda's son became King Henry 11nd,the first Plantagenant king. Jane Grey equally could be included. However neither of these two were crowned,but there again,neither was Edward Vth or Edward V111th, and both of these certainly count as monarchs.

Why CG? Why not ‘Queen Kate’?

(I agree about the vitriol. It seems to get worse )

What about Catherine when it comes to her turn?

Will we be happy to call her ‘Queen Catherine’, or has she got to be ‘Queen Consort’ also?

Don’t think it will be ‘Queen Kate’, even if that is how the media will describe her.

👑

Joseanne

^If you are anti H & M, then you're just fallen for media trash and nonsense which comes from the Palace to deflect from C, C and W & K.^
I disagree. I think most people I know are far too discerning to fall for that one. They judge from what they hear from Harry himself. But that is another issue, not really this thread.
Personally I'm not into all this "support" or "don't support" stuff. I like, or I don't like, what I see.

I agree.
We listen to Harry and make a judgement on what he says.

Mollygo

Tattooedfidelma

I’m stunned at how nasty this thread has got. This is why I rarely take part. I’m not a fan of the royals but Charles and Camilla seem like nice people who are doing their best. I know many people who have affairs and remarry after divorce and they aren’t condemned for years afterwards.

It’s always nasty when it’s about the RF. whether it’s V3’s tart or trollop nastiness or their homes, or their appearance or whatever. The RF/ republic argument rattles on, and so it should, but the personal nastiness about them is something else.

My nastiness?

I think you'll find that I didn't call her either of those names, other people did.

False accusation, Mollygo

If you are anti H & M, then you're just fallen for media trash and nonsense which comes from the Palace to deflect from C, C and W & K.
I disagree. I think most people I know are far too discerning to fall for that one. They judge from what they hear from Harry himself. But that is another issue, not really this thread.
Personally I'm not into all this "support" or "don't support" stuff. I like, or I don't like, what I see.

Oh for heavens sakes, she is the wife of the king, the wife of the king is a queen end of story.

Tattooedfidelma

I’m stunned at how nasty this thread has got. This is why I rarely take part. I’m not a fan of the royals but Charles and Camilla seem like nice people who are doing their best. I know many people who have affairs and remarry after divorce and they aren’t condemned for years afterwards.

It’s always nasty when it’s about the RF. whether it’s V3’s tart or trollop nastiness or their homes, or their appearance or whatever. The RF/ republic argument rattles on, and so it should, but the personal nastiness about them is something else.

Anniebach

Diana’s treatment of other women is acceptable?

... good point!

Nicegranny

I cannot forgive her or forget that Camilla was Princess Diana’s tormentor.
She’s no queen, she’s just the mistress that got very lucky.

What a truly horrible thing to say.

Bear in mind that no woman becomes anyone's mistress unless some man is willing to either commit adultery or fornication!

As for calling her Princess Diana's tormentor - re-read what I wrote about mistresses, please.

Everyone makes mistakes, but unlike Charles, Camilla and Diana, most of us make ours outside the glare of publicity. Surely it is time to give the matter of the present King's unfortunate first marriage a rest. He like many another man chose the wrong wife, but if the world and his wife had not been so busy sticking their noses into that marriage, the couple might just have been able to adjust better to each other and sort out their differences.

Not my Queen nor my King. The monarchy was finished for me when the Queen died.

I was speaking to the republican campaign team a few weeks ago. There support no's have shot up since The Queen passed.

As for Camilla. Don't get me started and Charles is no better.

The proven appalling treatment of H & M says it all for me.

If you are anti them, then you're just fallen for media trash and nonsense which comes from the Palace to deflect from C, C and W & K

I'm not going into reams on it however the palace treatment of H & M is appalling. Though I expect alot of you won't agree. There is a far bigger support of H & M in the U.K and world wide than you think