King Charles III

I would like people to give Queen Consort Camilla more credit. I was shocked when a Dutch friend said she gets terrible press there and is called ‘Old Witch’ etc. I feel guilty as long ago I was also very negative to her and pro Diana.

However, now I feel nothing but admiration for how she has stuck it out uncomplainingly in the face of horrible abuse over the years, and far from being lazy as was formerly said, now is working really hard into her seventies.

I know the Duchess of Sussex has many supporters on this post, but part of my change of heart towards Camilla is due to her. She left the RF and voiced many complaints, where I’d have expected her to be much more resilient having been through the Hollywood system of auditions and often cruel and personal rejections.

So, well done, Camilla. God save the Queen Consort (and the King too, of course.)

Brilliantly said, Irismarle. God save the King and the Queen Consort.

I was thinking a couple of days ago about the whole Diana/Camilla fiasco.

I think that we need to go back to the start of C&A’s relationship and the RF’s total disapproval - particularly the Queen Mother’s.

If they had accepted Camilla, the whole unfortunate episode would never had happened. Charles is not the prime culprit - it is the system which forced him into marriage, primarily by sending him overseas and then making it clear to Camilla that their relationship was going no-where, where upon she decided to throw her lot in with Parker Bowles.

Charles never loved Diana, but never wavered from loving Camilla.

What a different RF it would be if the RF had accepted Camilla as they should have done, and what a lot of heart ache would have been avoided.

In the coming months I hope that our King will continue totrimthose who areworking Royals, a step towards modernisation of the monarchy.

I do hope so.

Don’t lay all the blame on the royal family, the villain was
John Spencer, he wanted one of his daughters to marry a royal.

Charles dated Sarah Spencer, she gave an interview which ended that relationship.

What did Diana mean when she said about Andrew ‘he was always playing video games, I knew he wasn’t for me’

Diana adored her father, was so angry about Raine she pushed
Raine down a staircase.

Couldn't agree with you more Ww2. The late Queen mother and Lady Fermoy (sp?) really should have kept out of the marriage of the then P.OW and affairs of his heart. How different things would have been and so much heart ache avoided. I too admire Camilla, to put up with so much flack she really must love Charles, actually they clearly adore each other, which is touching and strangely comforting to see. The Queen clearly accepted and was content with them, and that is good enough for me. Our Dutch friends, lovely as they are, irritated me a few years at, by insisting that our Queen should abdicate, in favour of the then unmarried Prince Harry!!! I explained gently that our Queen would never abdicate nor do we want her to, if she became too infirmed there would be a regency with Prince Charles, as her heir taking on her duties not Prince Harry! They couldn't seem to grasp this at all, Prince William was apparently too dull!! the then two children too young! At that point I pointed out that all countries have their own way of doing things, and this is what we do, and that actually is nothing to do with anyone else. Conversation ceased! The Dutch can be very blunt (rude?) and I personally resent their comments about Camilla which our Dutch friends also know.

icanhandthemback

*Germanshepherdsmum*, I haven't condemned Charles for his divorce and it would have been better for the children if they'd done that without all the shenanigans first.
I am certainly not without sin and have never claimed to be. I assume I am allowed an opinion though!
I wasn't boasting about my links with the Church, just correcting the assumptions being made. Some of the most engaged people with the Church aren't necessarily the best Christians so having been through all that doesn't really mean anything.

Charles did not have any option to make his personal business public when Diana gave the interview she did. Her reasons for doing that were also her own.

His behaviour doesn't bear on his position as titular head of the church. No one is perfect. No one can know why people behave as they do or what has gone before. I thought Christians believed that God forgives if we repent, and whether that has happened is between God and the person concerned - not the gossips.

I have been through a divorce, and I promise you the rumours and speculation and 'totally weird' reactions could well have done far more damage than any behaviour on our part. The children coped extremely well, as they had learned to do. They took on board the facts. They understood that very little human behaviour is a simply black or white, strong or weak, just or unfair way of doing things. They learned that when life throws you a curve ball, you get up, get on and make a new life for yourself, and that family is always there for you.

If I were a Christian from olden times, who believed in these things, I would tell you that gossip and a judgemental attitude are the work of the devil. Those who join in with it do it at the cost of their own well-being.

You were not boasting, I agree. However, you seem to think yours is the only 'right' view.

I, and I think you were refering to me, did not make incorrect assumptions. I explained that if you were not currently a member of the Church of England, which it appears you are not, you would not have a vote were there to be one.

Like so many, you seem to believe you have a "right" to an opinion. No one does. It's just one of those catchy phrases that mislead people. You cannot and in this country would not be stopped from holding an opinion in your mind. Once put into a discussion, you have no right to be right; others have every right to point out where your opinion doesn't add up.

Volver
It will take some grown-up thinking to get to a republic, but that day will come. Eventually.

You came on this thread determined to alter other people's points of view. You haven't achieved that. Why not accept it with good grace and stop believing that you know what is best for us?

It isn't the case that we don't understand what you propose, but it is foolish, having read the previous posts, to expect everyone to fall into agreement with you. Those posters, who disagree, are adults. It is rude and arrogant to say they are not. If you don't want people to disagree with you, don't put forward an argument that most don't want to follow. You may never win your point, or it could happen, but win or lose, that argument does not make you better than the next person.

Charles did not have any option to make his personal business public when Diana gave the interview she did. Her reasons for doing that were also her own.

Charles gave his interview before Diana.

I have been through a divorce, and I promise you the rumours and speculation and 'totally weird' reactions could well have done far more damage than any behaviour on our part. The children coped extremely well, as they had learned to do.

Perhaps the press coverage was less triggering!

However, you seem to think yours is the only 'right' view.

Nope. I just won't change my view to fit in with yours. I am not trying to persuade anybody they are wrong and appreciate they have a different view. It is for that reason I would rather not engage further because it is tedious for everybody to have to read arguments where the views are never going to change. It serves no purpose.

Right then DaisyAnne.

I am a firm believer in Republicanism. To begin with, since the late Queen died, I stayed off the topic out of a sense of propriety. But in the last few days we have seen all kinds of insults and derogatory comments about Republicans, and I won’t stay silent in the face of that.

I'm not naïve enough to think that a few posts on social media will change anybody’s mind about monarchies and republics. But I will keep posting whenever I see anyone else posting nonsense about the only alternative being Trump/Farage/Blair or how Thatcher would have been President for Life. Also, provided I’m not offensive, I can post anything at all on here about my strongly held views and you telling me that I shouldn’t be doing it won’t stop me.
The reason that I say that we need an adult discussion about republicanism is that we are not having any kind of adult discussion right now. We are seeing people trying to stop any discussion about it at all and seeming to think that even the mention of the word is treason. Well, it is not. A mature country does not depend on the good graces of one family in order to prosper; it realises that we are all responsible for ourselves and takes on that responsibility.

So I didn’t say that those who disagree with me are not adults, and the fact that you think I did just rather plays into my argument about others not really understanding the wider picture.

I very much doubt that as a result of my posting on here the whole membership of GN will have the scales fall from their eyes and become Republicans, but I’ll keep posting my points of view and you won’t stop me doing it by telling me I’m p***ing in the wind. And if you don’t agree with me, well you are just going to have to learn to live with it because I’m not going anywhere.

“Charles gave his interview before Diana.“ icanhandthemback

He did, in 1984, openly to Jonathan Dimbleby, a full two years after Diana’s underhand subterfuge with Andrew Morton was published....

The Dimbleby was 1994 was it not ?

icanhandthemback

^Charles did not have any option to make his personal business public when Diana gave the interview she did. Her reasons for doing that were also her own. ^

Charles gave his interview before Diana.

I have been through a divorce, and I promise you the rumours and speculation and 'totally weird' reactions could well have done far more damage than any behaviour on our part. The children coped extremely well, as they had learned to do.

Perhaps the press coverage was less triggering!

However, you seem to think yours is the only 'right' view.

Nope. I just won't change my view to fit in with yours. I am not trying to persuade anybody they are wrong and appreciate they have a different view. It is for that reason I would rather not engage further because it is tedious for everybody to have to read arguments where the views are never going to change. It serves no purpose.

You are entitled to keep your view. I will keep mine that the "sin" of gossip, as sins are what you were judging, and judgement over others is as bad as any other. I will also keep the view that a so-called Christian should not be heaping either on anyone in the way you do.

Perhaps the press coverage was less triggering!

I imagine you think that is a joke. I very, very rarely share details of my life online. I was just trying to explain that others have been through the same difficulties. We put the children first. That was our priority. That was not enough for our small-town gossips, who certainly didn't think about the children. In the same way, you have continued digging and mud throwing around Charles with no thought for those he matters to but only about yourself.

I am glad to hear you are now going to leave the poor man alone. But it isn't to your credit, is it? You are leaving it while lashing out at others.

I consider Charles and Camilla will be as good a King and Queen Consort as we could hope for; given their natural human fragility and weaknesses. I don’t see signs within him of a tyrannical soul but rather one who feels very connected and has a great love of nature and people. I love the pomp and pageantry the ceremony and colour having a Monarchy brings, other alternatives I find bleak and bland. All ways of governance with wither in time, as is to be expected, call me a romantic, childlike, I care not a jot, I know I know nothing, but I do know what gives me a sense of Being, belonging purpose and joy, and part of that is embedded in my rootedness in the ancient royal history of Britain

Gabrielle56

volver

MaizieD.

I would like this country to be a republic because I believe that any citizen of this country should be entitled to aspire to be Head of Government or Head of State. As long as one can only become Head of State by being a descendant of the last Head of State, we can never call ourselves a democracy or a truly equal country.

All countries have the right to design their own constitutions. When we have become mature enough to realise that we do not need to have a Head of State that looks good riding on a carriage, then we can decide what sort of HoS we want, and what their job will be.

Not everybody wants that. Some people are happy to stick to the old ways, with a Royal Family. But that perpetuates the old habits of inequality, and entrenched deference to a ruling class. I would prefer a system where the HoS truly represents the citizens of this country.

At this stage, I would love it if people realised that having an elected HoS does not mean we have a system like the US, or France, or anywhere else. We have our own system, which we will decide on.

Again I understand not everyone wants that. Some want to stick with the status quo, and that is a valid position. However those people aren't entitled to mock republicans if they don't understand what it is that we propose. They are not entitled to think we are anarchists intent on beheading that nice King and his lovely family, just because we are jealous of their wealth.

It will take some grown up thinking to get to a republic, but that day will come. Eventually.

How interesting a post. Surely you don't believe for one millisecond that a 'civilian' head of state will not feel they are entitled to avail themselves of all the trappings of royalty do you?! Have you not learned anything from what has happened in former Communist Russia? Or China? Old emperors and tsars swept aside, murdered and the 'people' installed as a totally equal and harmonious state of being. NOT! As Roger daltrey once sang " meet the new boss-same as the old boss" royals are a figure of state and have no political or personal ambitions, why should they? I agree that some serious cloth cutting is now required, but have a power crazed megalomaniacal social climber as absolute head of state? Get real! It was bad enough enduring the last power mad social climber, Thatcher , that went well didn't it. So try really thinking about what you wish for before releasing that genie the wording of the wish can be the undoing of the wisher.

Good post volver

No a civilian Head of State would not avail him/her self of all the trappings of royalty nor would it cost as much.
Just one official residence and an office.
The role would be clearly defined with a written constitution a parliamentary HoS who could step in if a PM were to break the laws of our constitution unlike the monarch who allowed Johnson to porogue parliament. It's not right that we have a monarch that has no role to play just attend places cut ribbons that is not work.

Republic would like a parliamentary HoS similar to Ireland who is well liked and respected.

The cost of Irelands President £4 million about the same as Charles received in a Fortnam Mason bag.

volver

Right then DaisyAnne.

I am a firm believer in Republicanism. To begin with, since the late Queen died, I stayed off the topic out of a sense of propriety. But in the last few days we have seen all kinds of insults and derogatory comments about Republicans, and I won’t stay silent in the face of that.

I'm not naïve enough to think that a few posts on social media will change anybody’s mind about monarchies and republics. But I will keep posting whenever I see anyone else posting nonsense about the only alternative being Trump/Farage/Blair or how Thatcher would have been President for Life. Also, provided I’m not offensive, I can post anything at all on here about my strongly held views and you telling me that I shouldn’t be doing it won’t stop me.
The reason that I say that we need an adult discussion about republicanism is that we are not having any kind of adult discussion right now. We are seeing people trying to stop any discussion about it at all and seeming to think that even the mention of the word is treason. Well, it is not. A mature country does not depend on the good graces of one family in order to prosper; it realises that we are all responsible for ourselves and takes on that responsibility.

So I didn’t say that those who disagree with me are not adults, and the fact that you think I did just rather plays into my argument about others not really understanding the wider picture.

I very much doubt that as a result of my posting on here the whole membership of GN will have the scales fall from their eyes and become Republicans, but I’ll keep posting my points of view and you won’t stop me doing it by telling me I’m p***ing in the wind. And if you don’t agree with me, well you are just going to have to learn to live with it because I’m not going anywhere.

You are doing it again! The "whole membership of GN" do not have scales over their eyes. How condescending are you going to be before you call it a day?

You hold an opinion. It is not a truth; it is just an opinion. Those who do not share it may have an equal but opposite view. You are not "right". Constitutional Monarchy is not "right"; it is just another view. However, it is the way we have chosen to do things. No system will ever be "right". Each and every one will have flaws and weaknesses.

You sound like the terrorists do. ^You must agree; I am right.
You are personally in some way flawed or you would share my view^

I don't agree with you about how we should have a head of state. However, that is not the point of this discussion. If you showed me why you believe it would be "better", I would listen; but you don't. You point your words at us and fire them at every opportunity. All I have asked for is a reasoned and reasonable conversation.

DaisyAnne

Volver
It will take some grown-up thinking to get to a republic, but that day will come. Eventually.

You came on this thread determined to alter other people's points of view. You haven't achieved that. Why not accept it with good grace and stop believing that you know what is best for us?

It isn't the case that we don't understand what you propose, but it is foolish, having read the previous posts, to expect everyone to fall into agreement with you. Those posters, who disagree, are adults. It is rude and arrogant to say they are not. If you don't want people to disagree with you, don't put forward an argument that most don't want to follow. You may never win your point, or it could happen, but win or lose, that argument does not make you better than the next person.

Well sorry to disappoint you Daisyanne but I find Volvers posts very interesting and informative. She makes good points. makes me think, and I find myself even more swayed to the republican side.
Good work Volver

i know that C&A have every luxury

I read that as the shop !!

you sound like the terrorists do.

As Dan Mascall would have said “oh I say”. Bit OTT.

DaisyAnne I have no idea what you are reading but it's not what I'm posting. ?

Anyone seen this from The Times ?

Oops

Lucca

Anyone seen this from The Times ?

What?

Is C&A opening again? ?

Oh sorry, X post

Anniebach

The Dimbleby was 1994 was it not ?

You’re right Anniebach - typo!?‍♀️