To think Camilla should be queen?

[Brian9600]

Just interested in people's views. The whole Charles/Diana/Camilla thing was grim but it's also grim that she's the one treated as responsible rather than him. All water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned.

(Obviously some people would get rid of the lot of them, and fair enough.)

Vote YANBU for Queen Camilla
Vote YABU for Never Queen Camilla

I think people overestimate how much "outrage" there would be. They've been happily married for years now. They have clearly always love one another.

@pickledplumjam

I think people overestimate how much "outrage" there would be. They've been happily married for years now. They have clearly always love one another.

I don’t think there would be any outrage. I don’t know anyone who cares enough to even have a view.

@nancybotwinbloom

No absolutely not.

If she is it makes a mockery of their image.
I care not one way it the other.

But, if she is made Queen I think there will be public uproar.

She was an affair. Regardless of where they are now.

She was an affair

They have been married for 15 years, the same length of time that Diana and Charles were married. And since their marriage is ongoing, they are on track to last longer than Charles and Diana.

I’d say that is more than just ‘an affair’.

I’d say that is more than just ‘an affair’.

I want to rephrase my last post.

I’d say that she is more than ‘an affair’.

@CoronaIsWatching

*Seriously? Do you know that The Crown is a TV drama and not a documentary?!?!

I like watching the Crown. However, I'm not sure The Crown should be held up as a historical accurate documentary of what happened within the Royal family. hmm

Please say this post was a sarcastic one, or a joke post*

Presumably you're aware that history documentaries and history books all have their own bias regarding the writers or authors own personal view and target audience.

There's literally no such thing as a historically accurate documentary or history book. The Crown is just as good as it still draws on primary sources in crafting its story in the same way as any book or other tv show

Oh Wow, you were serious.

The Crown is inspired by actual events - as a PP has pointed out they are creative with timelines and dialogue in order to entertain...it’s a work of historical fiction designed to attract viewers to its broadcast platform.

You might not think there’s such thing as a historical accurate documentary or book but there’s a number of them that are a world closer to “fact” than The Crown

I agree "outrage" is a bit strong. And I don't think it's their love for one another that people object to. It's the collateral damage their union caused. Quite a few people I know who are Diana's generation and older , do think that as a nineteen year old, she was thrown to the wolves.

And the future heir to the throne didn't come clean, he continued to lie about his part in it all. Prince Charles’s told Jonathan Dimbleby in a televised interview broadcast, that he had rekindled his relationship with Camilla only after his marriage had ‘irretrievably broken down' which was patently untrue. And then his powerful establishment friends and top notch PR company briefed against Diana. It was despicable behaviour. Particularly as he had the power of the crown behind him. Whether intentional or not, it was classically abusive behaviour (on the part of the establishment as well as Charles personally) ; intimidate, isolate, obfuscate.

So what if they love each other. They were happy to lie and cheat. Why should my taxes maintain them, why should we courtsey to them? Charles especially - how is it possible that someone with his moral track record is going to be head of the church? If he had any decency he would abdicate and fade into obscurity. But no - he wants the freedom of the commoner and the privileges of the monarch.

Their behaviour and hypocrisy turn my stomach. To see people here fawning over them "I think she's great" is just weird.

You might not think there’s such thing as a historical accurate documentary or book but there’s a number of them that are a world closer to “fact” than The Crown

Oh please, Anyone can tell when watching The Crown which scenes are embellished for the story

Charles and Camilla are a joke. We should end the monarchy in my opinion.

Luckily, by the time the queen passes, Charles will have a fairly short reign in comparison to his mother.

Regardless or not whether he has been married to camilla for 15 years, she was still the other woman for a so many years. How can he stand up as "the head of the church" (I'm not religious by the way), knowing he used to shag another woman whilst he was married. Makes a mockery of the whole thing...

Yep sure, if she wants, she might not want to be queen though.

She seems like a very nice lady I don't have against her.

If all the living relatives of the family, including the children who are now married with their own kids and entering middle age, have made peace with stuff that happened back when the charts were full of Agadoo and Walk Like An Egyptian, it does seem odd that so many other complete strangers can't.

We are not talking about the infidelity experiences of anyone else. Just this one. It should not be taken personally.

@PrincessNutNut

If all the living relatives of the family, including the children who are now married with their own kids and entering middle age, have made peace with stuff that happened back when the charts were full of Agadoo and Walk Like An Egyptian, it does seem odd that so many other complete strangers can't.

We are not talking about the infidelity experiences of anyone else. Just this one. It should not be taken personally.

It's not "taking it personally" to want to your future (unelected) Head of State to be someone with moral integrity.

Taken from the website of the Royal Household:

"As Head of State, The Monarch undertakes constitutional and representational duties which have developed over one thousand years of history. In addition to these State duties,

The Monarch has a less formal role as 'Head of Nation'. The Sovereign acts as a focus for national identity, unity and pride; gives a sense of stability and continuity; officially recognises success and excellence; and supports the ideal of voluntary service."

The voting on this thread is pretty divided. Imagine if it was representative as the country of a whole (a bit of a reach admittedly!) 41% would not want C &C to reign. I wouldn't exactly call that "acting as a focus for national unity and pride". That's why this is a serious issue.

Tbf the voting is hardly going to be a representative sample of the county. You only need to visit the education board to make that. Slightly more than 7% of the threads are about which prep school young Johnny should go to. Mumsnet is hardly a cross section of British life.

Currently watching 'diana in her own words' on netflix. It's a no from me.

Tbf the voting is hardly going to be a representative sample of the county.

Yes I concede that Pickledplumjam . My main point is that it's hard to argue that Camilla potentially becoming Queen is entirely without controversy. I am sure a lot of people won't care either way.

When the time comes however , I imagine more people will be questioning the role of the monarchy itself , rather than Camilla's ascendance specifically.

So what if they love each other. They were happy to lie and cheat

This

I read somewhere some years ago that it’s pretty well known in Chas’s circles that he intends for her to be Queen, he just keeps up the whole she won’t be thing for his mother, who won’t be around to care once it’s actually an issue. Don’t know how true that is though.

@CoronaIsWatching

You might not think there’s such thing as a historical accurate documentary or book but there’s a number of them that are a world closer to “fact” than The Crown

Oh please, Anyone can tell when watching The Crown which scenes are embellished for the story

And yet, and I’ll quote you:

“There's literally no such thing as a historically accurate documentary or history book. The Crown is just as good as it still draws on primary sources in crafting its story in the same way as any book or other tv show”

So is it just as good as a primary source or is it embellishing the story?

That anyone can claim The Crown is a source of genuine historical information is quite frankly laughable and implies questionable levels of intelligence.

At best it can be used to identify contemporary attitudes to the events but even that’s a stretch.

They are both liars and cheats. Devious, deceitful and unkind. I've no interest in the monarchy really, but I despise injustice and unfairness. Diana was treated bloody disgracefully by the pair of them.

Neither of them are suitable IMO

How can he stand up as "the head of the church" (I'm not religious by the way), knowing he used to shag another woman whilst he was married. Makes a mockery of the whole thing...

You do know the bedrock of Christianity is repentance, forgiveness and redemption?

Personally I don't agree with the concept of Monarchy. If it has to continue, I really think William and Harry should decide how this plays out, because those men have suffered enough to be able to at least control this one decision. I totally see why Harry ducked out.

he took 8 volumes of english literature to read and ignored her on honeymoon

I don't usually defend Prince Charles, but what's wrong with reading on your honeymoon? It's a holiday! I took a carrier-bag full of books (bought from charity shops in the preceding months) on my honeymoon. My husband didn't mind because he doesn't expect me to dance attendance on him every moment of the day.

* If all the living relatives of the family, including the children who are now married with their own kids and entering middle age, have made peace with stuff that happened back when the charts were full of Agadoo and Walk Like An Egyptian, it does seem odd that so many other complete strangers can't. *

^Tbh I agree with this. If Diana’s sons have come to terms with what happened, why is it that so many strangers are still going on about it 25 years on? It reminds me of when the crowds were weeping hysterically after her death and demanding that her grief stricken sons of 15 and 12 come out to see them.

Where Charles is concerned, I agree that it’s inappropriate for him to be Defender of the Faith, same as with many of his predecessors. But then, I believe church and state should be separated anyway.

@Mittens030869 @PrincessNutNut I would agree with you if we were talking about Charles and camilla from the local village who had an affair ions ago and all the family were ok with it.

It’s very different when the couple in question (who have shown very poor morals and character) are literally going to be the face of the U.K., the king and queen for Christ sake. Head of the church, funded by tax payers, expecting people to bow and scrape before them. I would expect better of people in that role and hold them to a higher standard.