Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think that Camilla is a bit of a national treasure

385 replies

GitAwfMayLend · 29/04/2011 20:23

Yes another wedding based thread.

I think she seems a good egg. And looked lovely today.

Plus there were a few moments where she looked very emotional in the abbey, was very touching.

OP posts:
scaryteacher · 02/05/2011 10:56

As someone once commented, Brig P-B 'laid down his wife for his friend'.

Their behaviour was appalling - God knows what her children thought, and his behaviour was appalling in the extreme; very unofficer like behaviour it was considered to be indeed.

ZZZenAgain · 02/05/2011 11:11

laid down his wife

ouch

Yellowstone · 02/05/2011 11:34

scary I got told off up the thread for referring to AP-B's apparent rewards for services rendered.

It's exactly that, the scale of Charles and Camilla's contrivances to get what they wanted with disregard to the human cost that mean he and she are only fit to be put out to grass.

IMO.

scaryteacher · 02/05/2011 11:53

I think there would be some problem in influencing the promotion boards to that extent, or at least I hope there would. I felt really sorry for AP-B, he must have felt like a laughing stock. That said, he should have kicked her arse into touch - she'd have had a soft landing anyway.

clam · 02/05/2011 12:32

I thought it was common knowledge that APB was rampant in the infidelity stakes himself. Par for the course in those circles, I'm told!
Didn't Jilly Cooper base her character Rupert Campbell-Black on him?

Yellowstone · 02/05/2011 12:37

Oh scary that's sweet (the hope, not the soft landing so much).

flippinada · 02/05/2011 12:41

But the whole royal family were a party to it ' Yellowstone. By the same token none of them are fit to rule either and the Queen should abdicate now and divorce Prince Philip.

sue52 · 02/05/2011 12:45

Anyone who takes their solemn marriage vows as lightly as Prince Charles should not be held up as a role model and is not fit to be the head of the Church of England.

mateysmum · 02/05/2011 12:52

Thank goodness I stumbled on this thread. I thought I was the only one who didn't believe Diana was a sainted virgin. Frankly none of the interested parties come out well and neither did the RF and the establishment. But the public and the press should also take responsibility. I remember at the time, how the whole country was demanding this "fairytale" wedding. Nothing but a virgin bride was good enough. Well we got one and what a disaster it turned out to be.
I also am still gobsmacked at the public reaction to Diana's death. How could they want those boys parade themselves in public, in their darkest hour, to satisfy some mawkish, public sentiment. How dare they call the Queen unfeeling because she wouldn't come and weep on the pavements with them. Because she has never been one to parade her emotions in public, doesn't mean she doesn't have them. She was far more use at Balmoral, looking after her grandsons than reading cards outside Kensington Palace.
Do i like Camilla? Yes. I don't think she is looking to be Queen, I think she would be far happier at Highgrove as Mrs Windsor with the man she loves. Should she be Queen - absolutely YES. As others have said, the monarchy is not a version of the X Factor. Crikey if we banned anyone from being a monarch because they had an affair or weren't good looking enough, we'd be pretty short of candidates!!

Yellowstone · 02/05/2011 12:53

Doesn't follow logically Flippin. They knew about it but it was entirely in Charles and/ or Camilla's gift to stop the shagging, nobody else's and phooey to 'love'. Set a decent example or push off. IMO.

They're all usurpers anyhow, dodgy lot the Hanoverians and the internal line is pretty oblique. Still, possession is nine tenths of the law apparently/ evidently.

And the Queen's done a really good job, Charles so far has done relatively little. Yes I know about the Prince's Trust etc. etc. That stuff is all good but not enough. IMO.

Yummygummybear · 02/05/2011 12:55

Well said Mateysmum

QuickLookBusy · 02/05/2011 13:02

Yellowstone, when Charles does try to get involved he is called a lunatic and a busy body. I'm sure he would actually like to be more involved.

I think the Princes trust is fantastic and has helped a lot of younge people.

flippinada · 02/05/2011 13:03

Didn't Prince Philip encourage the match though? And Charles was scared of his Dad so went along with it?

And none of them treated Diana very well when it comes to it, of course, she had her moments of bad behaviour too.

It appears that William and Harry are decent sorts (as far as the monarchy goes of course) so Charles and Camilla can't be that bad as people.

I don't any of them should be there in the first place of course but there you go...I'm not sure GB will ever be a republic!

flippinada · 02/05/2011 13:07

"Crikey if we banned anyone from being a monarch because they had an affair or weren't good looking enough, we'd be pretty short of candidates!!"

V true.

Re: my comment above, actually have no idea what William and Harry are like cos we just know what we are 'allowed' to know. Could be they go out stamping on bunnies for fun for all we know Grin

Yellowstone · 02/05/2011 13:08

mateys I'm not sure you get the point if you believe that this is about an affair per se, let alone looks. It's nothing like that shallow and you can't make it so just by adding those comments.

If you happened to be a bit of a pain and called Charles I, or if you have Catholic leanings and be called James II, you got buzzed out. Over in France they also buzzed out their King. And Edward VIII more recently too. Public opinion does matter, absolutely, and more so now than ever before with the greater lack of automatic deference.

(Could take the X Factor analogy much further but you're spared that because the smaller DC's are cross and want to get to the beach).

Yellowstone · 02/05/2011 13:10

Quicklook I've already said the Prince's Trust is good stuff, no-one would deny it.

Yellowstone · 02/05/2011 13:13

flippin problem with my tenses re. James II, please don't correct me today!

flippinada · 02/05/2011 13:14

I agree that lack of deference is definitely a good thing. But not sure it will make much difference.

I also think that the not marrying a catholic thing is ridiculous and an example of what an anachronistic and irrelevant institution (I think) the monarchy is.

Btw, wasn't Charles II a catholic, just not openly so? I believe there was a secret treaty with France where he was going to convert on his deathbed.

flippinada · 02/05/2011 13:15

I'm not going to Yellowstone! I make plenty mistakes myself tbh :).

Yellowstone · 02/05/2011 13:19

DC's will depose me soon :) Charles II did convert on his deathbed. Quite a canny strategic move to leave it 'til then :)

GKlimt · 02/05/2011 13:33

Yellowsone Charles II wouldn't be the first 'graveyard catholic' and not the last Hmm One of the more convenient get out clauses of catholicism.

edam · 02/05/2011 13:33

The Catholic thing dates from the days when the Pope was sponsoring plots to have our monarchy killed and force the country back to his sphere of influence. This went on for generations. Akin to Islamic terrorism today (and yes, I know only a very few Muslims are terrorists, but there are terrorist organisations that claim to be acting on behalf of Islam).

Today obviously that's not the case but it's still tricky as the monarch is the head of the Church of England. Not really suitable for someone who is RC. You could remove the monarch from the Church but then how is it the national Church? And having a national church is important - apart from anything else, it makes it clear who leads national religious services like the Royal wedding, or Remembrance Sunday, but also means anyone can turn to the local vicar for comfort, funerals or weddings. CofE vicars have a duty to care for everyone, of any faith or none, if asked.

mateysmum · 02/05/2011 13:36

Yellowstone, I agree, public opinion does matter, but the point I'm making is that the monarch is not appointed according to to a popularity poll and unpleasant as it was, Prince Charles's adultery is not a good enough reason to pass him over as King. His offences against Diana with Camilla seem to be the reason most people give for doing so. What do you see as the deeper reasons?

Chas I and James II are quite different cases. Both these monarchs committed acts which were unconstitutional and were politically and religiously disastrous in the context of their time. To use your phrase, it was nothing like that shallow as being a pain or having Catholic leanings. Edward VIII was forced to make a choice and he chose Wallis Simpson over the Crown. Don't know which choice Charles would make if pushed. I doubt it will come to that.

GKlimt · 02/05/2011 13:37

May I ask of the constitutional experts here. What would likely happen if the queen developed dementia or some other condition wh made it impossible for her to carry out her role as head of state? Would Charles become prince
regent?

flippinada · 02/05/2011 14:02

Siobahnagain - not an expert here but yes I believe that's what would happen. When George III went 'mad' his son stepped in as Prince Regent and succeeded on his death.

Similarly - if (for example) William dies before his heir comes of age (which I think is 18) then a regent would be appointed until he/she came of age.