Lady di would have been queen...

[heartbroken22]

Just the thought of it creates butterflies in my stomach as when she died I was really young and it hurt a lot...even though I didn't understand what really happened. I'm sad the queen has died but just the thought of princess diana becoming queen...it would have been amazing.

Thanks for explaining, but even you must admit your post was very confusingly written. Here is what you said, read it objectively:

Next up in fantasy land… U.K. could really do with a non-white monarch (so then Meghan wouldn’t have copped for some much shit). So I’m going to say, “and the Diana would have been Queen, and Dodi the King” ❤️

I never understood the fetishisation of Diana tbh, her death was sad of course but the public spectacle that followed it was ludicrous.
I'm really not sure why she's held up as some kind of saint by people who knew absolutely nothing about her.

*I was saying it would be a good thing to have a non-white monarch - and I was suggesting that Dodi could have been that'

I think that's possibly the most spectacular misunderstanding of how the RF and monarchy works that I've ever read.

She was responding to the nonsense that is the OP with her own nonsense. She wasn't suggesting that's how the monarchy works.

The reminds me of an awful pretend interview with Diana published in the Telegraph recently, portraying her as if she were still alive.

Fortunately it's behind a paywall so I can't share the link. You lucky people.

Thank you @Chikapu

@MrsDanversGlidesAgain it’s just a testament to the utter shite that people post on here in good faith (like the OP) that you didn’t instantly see my post for the pisstake that it was 🤣

No, that’s not correct. @RockingMyFiftiesNot is right.

If King Edward had remained on the throne his brother Henry would have succeeded him and then the crown would have passed to his heir. Today we’d have King Richard.

Clearly these people who write this fan fiction have far too much time on their hands 😂

How deluded. No, she didn’t.

She did have affairs. Bad behaviour in the relationship from both. It was a toxic relationship. They both moved on and he's been happy with Camilla for a very long time.

Actually sorry @KentuckyDerbyandJoan I think you’re right! just googled it. Shows what. My history teacher knew! All these years with the wrong information….

@eldora I didn’t think it was confusing because even your quoted section starts with, “next up in fantasy land” 🤣

I just have my head in my hands that such is the level of utter shite posted on the internet, that what is obvious pisstaking to me can confuse others.

But then I’ve just read a post on another thread where someone joked their train was cancelled because the driver was too grief stricken to drive - and someone else replied that the driver needs to get a grip… 🤯

This is where we are at on the internet - you can’t post sarcastic bollocks, because there’s a believer out there for every bollocks you could spout.

The Earth is flat.

She said Charles wouldn't be King.
And now he is.

Camilla is a much better match for Charles.
Diana was much too young and Charles was pushed into marriage.becausebhe was heir to the throne.. I don't think she would have been at all happy as Queen even if they had stayed married. . However they divorced before she died so would never have become the Queen. If she has lived she would probably be very happy married to someone more suited to her.

Yes the crown would have passed to the Queen eventually anyway but as I explained in a later post, my thinking was that Edward and Wallis might have had children if they'd married. Even if not, the Queen wouldn't have been Queen until Charles was a young adult, so maybe he would have been allowed to marry Camilla in the first place.
Hypothetical thinking I know, but then the whole basis of this thread is hypothetical!

It would have been amazing for two people to have been stuck in a miserable marriage for 40+ years? Sorry, that's really fucked up.

No, it would have still been the Queen. Her father dying before Edward would not have removed her from the order of succession, that's not how it works. People move down the order of succession if someone above them has a child, and move up if someone about them dies. Whole branches do not get removed.

Similarly if William dies before Charles then the crown will pass to George, not Harry.

Exactly!

They wouldn't have been able to marry any earlier than they did, as her divorce wasn't finalised until May 1937 and her and Edward married in June 1937. They didn't have children, she was 40 (nearly 41) by the time they married, and she had already been married twice with no children. It doesn't seem likely that him being on the throne would have changed anything with regards to them having children.

Any possibility of them marrying early was blocked by the fact she was already married. Not a divorcee - still married.

🤣 She was sleeping with one of her bodyguards. They were both as bad as eachother. A tit for tat cheating marraige that should have never happened. She was not not "innocent" or "destroyed" by her husband cheating. But, she was a good actress who knew how to play the part of the "People's Princess" so people like you would see her as perfect. As I said she was just as bad as him if not worse when it came to cheating on him with multiple men.

I guess at least Charles settled down with the woman he'd actually been in love with his whole life.

Camilla is the Queen Consort as was Queen Elizabeth II wish.

So the 19yo bride was cheating on her 32 yo husband with a bodyguard was she? You really will believe anything. As I said, deluded.

Charles’ affair with Camilla just a year after his marriage to Diana.

Missed this response when I replied to you, sorry!

For a demonstration of this in action (and to prove your history teacher wrong!), have a look at what happened before Queen Victoria - similar (but even messier) situation:
George III - reproduced a lot - 15 children. He died in 1820. Throne passes to oldest son
George IV - rules until 1930. His only child was already dead having died childless, so his branch had nobody left. Next in line was therefore his next younger brother
William IV - Rules until 1937. His (legitimate) children all died in infancy, so his branch also had nobody left. But look what happens next...
The next younger brother was Prince Edward. Had he been alive, he would have been king. But he was already dead - he'd died in 1820. But he had a child, born in 1819. She became Queen Victoria in 1837.

William IV had a further younger brothers still alive when he died, but they didn't become King. Because the death of Prince Edward did not remove Victoria from the line.

How on earth do you know that? Jesus she really did a number on everyone. Being 19 means you can't cheat?! If anything it make you more susceptible to seduction.

Honestly you need to understand Diana was human like everyone else. No better no worse. Not pure. Not innocent. Not an angel. HUMAN.

The delusions around Diana are absolutely crazy.

Yes, thanks - that all makes perfect sense - I googled as soon as I’d posted as the moment I’d hit ‘post’ something told me it just wasn’t right. I remember a conversation around the abdication in class and had never really thought more of it.

And yet - confession - I am a history graduate. <hangs head in shame and changes username>

Let’s never speak of this again…

Queen of our hearts........nobody would fall for any of that bollocks now post covid and general economic hardship. People would be chucking rotten vegetables.

Not read whole thread but noticed Camilla's maiden name was Shand and Diana's mother married a Shand-Kydd. Shand doesn't seem a very common name to me so is there some connection there or just coincidence?