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 Camilla should not be crowned Queen

483 replies

Viviennemary · 06/02/2022 00:41

I know there are other threads on this but I thought it would be interesting to get a vote. Seems most people are in favour. I'm not

OP posts:
diddl · 06/02/2022 15:54

"When they married the Queen did not attend"

She didn't attend the marriage but was at the church service I think.

Also hosted the reception where she is supposed to have said the he "is finally home & dry with the woman he loves"

NiceShrubbery · 06/02/2022 16:00

How does their 'back-pedalling' impact your life?

Exactly the same way as paying for benefits cheats (NB: cheats, not justified recipients) affects yours, ours and everybody else's. Precious resources going where they are not needed.

JacquelineCarlyle · 06/02/2022 16:05

@MayThePawsBeWithYou

Of course she wont be on coins or stamps, neither was Prince Phillip ,Charles will be King, she will be Queen Consort. Or maybe just Mrs King.
Mrs King - perfect - I'd support that one Grin
Thoosa · 06/02/2022 16:05

@NiceShrubbery

How does their 'back-pedalling' impact your life?

Exactly the same way as paying for benefits cheats (NB: cheats, not justified recipients) affects yours, ours and everybody else's. Precious resources going where they are not needed.

Really?

You think a Queen Consort costs more to run than a Princess Consort?!

How?

ScribblingPixie · 06/02/2022 16:10

I doubt she ever really wanted to marry Charles, but I think she's dealt with the last couple of decades pretty well, going from being pelted with bread rolls to that little wink on her way into the evening with Donald Trump. She's not done anything dodgy, just accepted the narrative and taken on the role to the best of her ability. Presumably William's ok with it.

NiceShrubbery · 06/02/2022 16:10

Thoosa Sorry, what? Who's paying for the fucking coronation, Service of Whatever, platinum gong of non-achievement and whatever other title they need to invent in order to keep this charade going?

Who gives a toss whether she's princess consort, queen consort, first lady of the tax-exempt bedchamber? I mean who in their right mind gives a fucking shit.

Thoosa · 06/02/2022 16:16

@NiceShrubbery

Thoosa Sorry, what? Who's paying for the fucking coronation, Service of Whatever, platinum gong of non-achievement and whatever other title they need to invent in order to keep this charade going?

Who gives a toss whether she's princess consort, queen consort, first lady of the tax-exempt bedchamber? I mean who in their right mind gives a fucking shit.

What’s the difference in cost, though? I know we payroll them, and I’m not delighted about it, but the King’s wife will cost us exactly the same whatever they call her.

Comparing it to benefit cheating is bizarre.

If you want to talk about giving all the Duchy land back, OTOH, I’m all for that. I think all this heir-splitting (boom tish) about Camilla’s title is just distracting, particularly if you want to have a real conversation about the economics of the monarchy.

FlowerArranger · 06/02/2022 16:21

@NiceShrubbery

When they married the Queen did not attend

True, but the non-attendance was because she's head of the CofE and couldn't be seen to condone the second marriage. Sanctimonious toeing of the line rather than disapproval.

She certainly approves of them now, as they will secure the Sacred Embezzling of the Taxpayers' Funds for the next x many years.

Not strictly true. The Queen did not attend the civil ceremony at the Register Office, but she did attend the church blessing and hosted the wedding reception.
Faevern · 06/02/2022 16:24

When they married the Queen did not attend

I see this has been quoted a couple of times, of course the Queen approves and believes Charles is with the woman he was meant to be with. Reinforces how dreadful it was to use Diana doesn’t it?

And this is why she didn’t attend the wedding, not because she doesn’t approve, she had already supported them by having them officially move in. But public opinion hadn’t quite mellowed enough for her to publicly support them in 2005. That was the context in which I wrote my comment.

NiceShrubbery · 06/02/2022 16:25

Comparing it to benefit cheating is bizarre.

Logical, not bizarre at all. The RF get a sovereign grant. A grant authorised by the lying scum at Westminster. The RF have lied, cheated, swindled, misrepresented, concealed, hidden assets, expanded their family and completely distorted the original (highly debatable) purpose of the post-war sov grant and now have their (dubiously-acquired) estates managed as if they were multinational firms complete with offshore assets and international real estate holdings and they still get a grant from the taxpayer. With their millions.

Claim JSA/DLA/[insert legitimate benefit of choice] and you get reassessed every ten minutes and have to justify your existence every five.

How are they not cheats?

NiceShrubbery · 06/02/2022 16:27

Sorry not sure what the bottle is doing there, it was supposed to say Other legitimate benefit but my phone is ancient.

Tree543 · 06/02/2022 16:29

@diddl

"When they married the Queen did not attend"

She didn't attend the marriage but was at the church service I think.

Also hosted the reception where she is supposed to have said the he "is finally home & dry with the woman he loves"

She said that? I bet that was nice for William and Harry to hear.
Bosephine · 06/02/2022 16:31

Yes she should be Queen consort, if we have a Royal Family at all. The fact she’s divorced shouldn’t matter a jot nor her affair with Charles (after all, he was just as bad). Can’t see why anyone would object unless you think women should be punished for things men do scot free.

diddl · 06/02/2022 16:34

"She said that? I bet that was nice for William and Harry to hear."

That's what I've read & that's what I always thought.

Unless there's some context missing?

WouldBeGood · 06/02/2022 16:36

It’s time we got rid of the lot of them.

SenecaFallsRedux · 06/02/2022 16:39

Yes, it was reported at the time that she said that. As for William and Harry, maybe they were and are happy for their father.

Thoosa · 06/02/2022 16:43

@NiceShrubbery

Comparing it to benefit cheating is bizarre.

Logical, not bizarre at all. The RF get a sovereign grant. A grant authorised by the lying scum at Westminster. The RF have lied, cheated, swindled, misrepresented, concealed, hidden assets, expanded their family and completely distorted the original (highly debatable) purpose of the post-war sov grant and now have their (dubiously-acquired) estates managed as if they were multinational firms complete with offshore assets and international real estate holdings and they still get a grant from the taxpayer. With their millions.

Claim JSA/DLA/[insert legitimate benefit of choice] and you get reassessed every ten minutes and have to justify your existence every five.

How are they not cheats?

That’s got nothing to do with what PP said which was specifically equating Camilla’s change in future title to benefit fraud.
Anonymouseposter · 06/02/2022 16:44

Her title won't make any difference to the taxpayer. Charles' coronation will cost the same whatever, so it's irrelevant to compare it to benefit cheating.
She has obviously won the queen's respect with her work and support to the monarchy.
As for judging people's private life (whoever they are) ,no one really knows the full story.
As long as there is a monarchy I can't see any problem at all with her being Queen Consort.

diddl · 06/02/2022 16:45

@SenecaFallsRedux

Yes, it was reported at the time that she said that. As for William and Harry, maybe they were and are happy for their father.
Yes & they may have been.

It's the suggestion (to me) that he never loved Diana.

Of course that might not have been the meaning & it was a while from them getting together & marrying, so the "finally" could just have meant that & no reference to Diana intended.

NiceShrubbery · 06/02/2022 16:49

FlowerArranger that's basically what I said. She couldn't be seen at the civil ceremony but went to the Service of dedication or whatever at the church.

NiceShrubbery · 06/02/2022 16:55

That’s got nothing to do with what PP said which was specifically equating Camilla’s change in future title to benefit fraud.

Not sure which pp that was, nor do I care, but my point is that the whole Queen Consort thing/Liz's endorsement of whatever Camilla needs to be called now, is a) planted by the media so the plebs keep sucking it up and talking about how deserving Camilla is instead of what a bellend Charles is, as demonstrated beautifully on this thread already, and b) to secure the future unnecessary flow of taxpayer funds into royal coffers.

Benefits cheats, the lot of them.

Thoosa · 06/02/2022 17:00

Not sure which pp that was, nor do I care,

So if you didn’t read it the point I was answering, why are you leaping all over me for my answer? Confused

You’re having a completely different debate. With yourself.

Lalliella · 06/02/2022 17:04

@EdithWeston

"No, she was one of the other women ,

Just because The Crown does appear to be featuring the other main mistress, or the woman Diana suspected he really wanted to marry in the 90s, it doesn't mean they didn't exist

Ooh intriguing, who was that @EdithWeston?
NiceShrubbery · 06/02/2022 17:05

Well you can't tell me which pp it was either, nor why they aren't benefits cheats, so we can let that stand then? ConfusedConfused

BadgerB · 06/02/2022 17:10

@sammylady37

....and get a politician. Or someone who wants a bit of glory

And crucially, someone you can vote out again.

Yes, you can vote for your favourite. That always works out so well....