'Queen Camilla'?

And repeating lies re that telephone conversation.

volver3. 12:42

Is a tart worse than a trollop?

Discussion on Camilla and Diana.
Your post V3.

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. 😞

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.

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

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.

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🤭

Aveline

Hmmmm. I gather she's to be called Queen Camilla despite the late Queen stating that she should be Queen Consort. Albert was only the Prince Consort. Poor old Prince Philip wasnt even that. What's so special about Camilla? I was warming to her but I'm not so sure now. They're taking a risk with the public support.

I agree with you volva3. If we are honest, everyone was involved in the slave trade in one way or another, and nobody, but nobody particularly in the early days saw anything wrong with it. So why would the RF of these times be any different? None of us, and it is quite a lot of us can be held responsible for something that happened long before we were born,anymore than modern day Germans, Japanese, Italians and many more can be blamed for two dreadful wars or indeed Julius Ceasar!

FannyCornforth

Why CG? Why not ‘Queen Kate’?

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

Because her name is ‘Catherine’, not ‘Kate’.

You never hear William refer to his wife as ‘Kate’, it’s always ‘Catherine’.

volver3

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. 😞

But you are such a good example of non-assimilation, and humour is only funny if the other person finds it funny V3. That’s why some comedians are popular with a group of people and some are not. Just thinking you are funny doesn’t mean you are. Evidently you haven’t assimilated that knowledge.
You never disappoint. I picture your responses and your responses match what I expect. ✂️✂️✂️✂️✂️😡😡

Bridgeit

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 agree.

As I said earlier that it makes not a jot of difference to me.

I don’t think she should be Queen .Queen Consort is bad enough . Still think Charles should of stepped and let William and Katherine do the job

What a bunch of miserable, opinionated people you lot are.

Don’t hold back * KevinCharley*. - tell it like it is

The wife of a king regnant is always called just queen, following their coronation - just like Queen Elizabeth's mother was. There is no such title as queen consort, it is what she is but it is not her title - all queens married to king regnants have been titled Queen XXX. Its different for the husband of a queen regnant such as Elizabeth and Victoria - as the title of queen is subordinate to that of king, their husbands are prince consorts and titled Prince rather than King. Queen Elizabeth would have been well aware of this, and also aware that the consort bit would be dropped following the coronation.

Thank you Saetana - how often does it need to be repeated I wonder.

It's a bit of a joke really/

The king clearly doesn’t have to do what his mother wished, he is the monarch now. I think queen Camilla sounds better. I like her, she’s doing her best.
Wish we didn’t have The royal family really. It gives some people the idea that others are better than them, and then we put up with oligarchs rich people who don’t pay tax and such.

Greta

I find it extraordinary that so many of you comment how 'nice' Camilla seems, how 'happy' she makes Charles. How on earth do you know? All they do is perform an act. To me it's an undignified soap opera.

Greta

We know in the same way as We know anything else about the RF. Some of it by prurient interest in others’ private lives, which people delight in spreading; some of it via the newspapers. Believing what you read in the newspapers, at least one poster is at great pains to inform us is so funny. Some of our knowledge comes via the media and some via books, which contain varying recollections of the truth
All of those contain embellishments added to suit the teller’s POV.
In fact, as IrishDancer posted above
^ We none of us know them.^

I find it extraordinary that so many of you comment how 'nice' Camilla seems, how 'happy' she makes Charles. How on earth do you know? All they do is perform an act. To me it's an undignified soap opera

Using the same barometer as you Greta, how do you know that Camilla isn't "nice" and that she doesn't make him happy? How do you know it's "just an act"? Do you know them personally to make such an observation? Or are you just like the rest of us and formed an opinion on what you read and see?

Nicegranny i fully agree with you.

She's a 'usurper'

She always looks so smug.

volver3

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.

I agree. (Don't faint.)

Schools, community halls, theatres, houses, even churches were built by benefactors using money from the slave trade.

We can't change history and we need to do our best now to abolish modern slavery.

I was very much against Camilla when Diana died. Then I learned more about Charles and his relationship with Camilla.

I believe he wanted to marry her when they first met. But she was in an off/on relationship with Parker Bowles. Also she had a past and was not considered grand enough by the royals who conspired to separate them. Charles was sent off on a long naval posting. He was heartbroken when she married Parker Bowles.

If they had been allowed to marry then the Charles/Diana debacle would never have taken place and things would have gone very differently.

Diana was very much sold into the marriage like a sacrificial virgin. She was a very immature 19 year old.

What a wonderful story for a historical novel. You couldn't make it up.