Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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:
ChocolateDeficitDisorder · 07/02/2022 15:34

I’m more worried about Charles being in charge!!!

In charge of what exactly?

NiceShrubbery · 07/02/2022 15:42

The media planted it? How odd. I thought it was in a letter signed by the Queen

Letter gets released on her say-so at a time that suits.

Blossomtoes · 07/02/2022 16:03

@NiceShrubbery

The media planted it? How odd. I thought it was in a letter signed by the Queen

Letter gets released on her say-so at a time that suits.

Precisely my point. So nothing to do with media plants.
Missey85 · 07/02/2022 16:17

Camilla should be queen she's been with Charles for years now I know people loved Diana but she's been gone a long time its good Charles has found someone that seems to make him happy

Leighcloon · 07/02/2022 16:26

@ChocolateDeficitDisorder

I’m more worried about Charles being in charge!!!

In charge of what exactly?

Oh, you know, kinging and stuff.
NiceShrubbery · 07/02/2022 17:55

Totally everything to do with media plants.

The media plant, or publish stuff, to suit a certain agenda.

But whatever, if people want to live in Unicornland and believe that the queen consort/princess consort is a just and divine force sent from heaven for the betterment of humanity and the media are the obedient servants of that divine force then they will do that.

The RF is such a load of medieval claptrap, WHY can people not see that.

BadgerB · 07/02/2022 20:04

The RF is such a load of medieval claptrap, WHY can people not see that.
-----------------------
Many of us can see it, but we LIKE Medieval claptrap.

Blossomtoes · 07/02/2022 20:21

Quite.

NiceShrubbery · 07/02/2022 20:28

So do I but give me The Last Kingdom on netflix anyday rather than these inbred wasters.

Blossomtoes · 07/02/2022 20:29

Netflix costs you a lot more than the monarchy.

TheKeatingFive · 07/02/2022 20:36

You don't have to pay for Netflix if you don't want it.

NiceShrubbery · 07/02/2022 20:49

@Blossomtoes

Netflix costs you a lot more than the monarchy.
This place is insane.
Thoosa · 07/02/2022 22:46

@NiceShrubbery

Totally everything to do with media plants.

The media plant, or publish stuff, to suit a certain agenda.

But whatever, if people want to live in Unicornland and believe that the queen consort/princess consort is a just and divine force sent from heaven for the betterment of humanity and the media are the obedient servants of that divine force then they will do that.

The RF is such a load of medieval claptrap, WHY can people not see that.

Wait. What? So you think the Queen is taking backhanders from the Daily Mail to create stories on cue?
Thoosa · 07/02/2022 22:48

Aren’t we allowed to be anti-monarchy without also believing that the tabloids plant stories via the Queen? Confused

saraclara · 07/02/2022 23:15

@NiceShrubbery

The media planted it? How odd. I thought it was in a letter signed by the Queen

Letter gets released on her say-so at a time that suits.

The letter was released by her to mark the anniversary of her accession.

Given that even the Telegraph has been appalled by Johnson's behaviour, I'm wondering which media is remotely interested in getting him out of trouble.

blueberryporridge · 07/02/2022 23:44

I agree, OP. She shouldn't be Queen Consort and ideally Prince Charles shouldn't be King, not only because of their vile behaviour in the past but also because, for example, in their ongoing sense of entitlement and to hell with the plebs, they decamped to Balmoral with Covid, along with their toadying entourage, at the height of lockdown. And, even more importantly, because when HM eventually goes, we should be taking the chance to stand the rest of them down.

Leighcloon · 08/02/2022 00:28

@blueberryporridge

I agree, OP. She shouldn't be Queen Consort and ideally Prince Charles shouldn't be King, not only because of their vile behaviour in the past but also because, for example, in their ongoing sense of entitlement and to hell with the plebs, they decamped to Balmoral with Covid, along with their toadying entourage, at the height of lockdown. And, even more importantly, because when HM eventually goes, we should be taking the chance to stand the rest of them down.
I’m just wondering how different the history of the monarchy would look if everyone who shagged around, before or after their marriage/s was automatically debarred from wearing the crown.

Pretty different, I imagine.

I’m imagining a sort of Shagging-Test Crown, rather like the Sorting Hat, in that the new king or queen sits on the Coronation Chair on live tv, the crown is placed on their head and immediately shouts ‘SHAGGER!’ or ‘CROWN AWAY!’

It would really liven up coronations. Especially if you had to have the entire line of succession sitting in the front two rows in case of a load of serial shaggers.

And do we test consorts too?

NiceShrubbery · 08/02/2022 14:09

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

crosstalk · 08/02/2022 16:09

The Queen or King has no control over the government which is democratically elected. The Prime Minister is elected within his own party (Tories) or membership and MP and union vote (Lab)

The Q/K is there to advise the PM. They keep abreast of laws, political and domestic/foreign policies through daily red boxes sent in by the government offices. Otherwise their role is soft diplomacy (presidential visits) )) , military roles, charities.

Many presidents in many countries are politically elected - some every 4 or 5 years but some just hang on in and rule as emperors. Few presidents are free of scandal. Just like RFs.

ON the fence here . Charles behaved appalling badly taking on a brood mare who was too young for the role and pressure and his clear passion for mistresses including Camilla.

However Camilla appears to have served welll and kept her nose clean. Why shouldn't she be Queen consort if she can handle the job?

Rossnagoose · 08/02/2022 16:20

Many presidents in many countries are politically elected - some every 4 or 5 years but some just hang on in and rule as emperors. Few presidents are free of scandal. Just like RFs.

You're confusing ceremonial heads of state with political positions where the HoS has significant power. If the HoS is essentially a ceremonial ribbon-cutter, he or she has no capacity to 'hang on in and rule as an emperor'.

Blossomtoes · 08/02/2022 16:21

Oh. Did it need marking again?

Yes, it did. It’s 70 years this year. A milestone which has never before been reached in British history and probably never will be again. Your vitriol is preventing you from seeing how momentous it is.

Livingtothefull · 08/02/2022 18:04

What is so momentous about it? No vitriol from me - I certainly don't wish the Queen any harm at all and despite being no monarchist I do have a great deal of respect for her personally - but there are many many other people I also respect & I am just failing to see this as a milestone event. 'Old rich woman lives a long time' .

And it might be just me but I don't feel in any mood for celebrating at the moment, with 170,000 people dead due to a pandemic which still isn't over.

Blossomtoes · 08/02/2022 18:17

What is so momentous about it?

I told you in the post you just relied to.

Livingtothefull · 08/02/2022 18:29

@Blossomtoes

What is so momentous about it?

I told you in the post you just relied to.

Yes and I told you why I don't agree.
NiceShrubbery · 08/02/2022 18:47

@Blossomtoes

Oh. Did it need marking again?

Yes, it did. It’s 70 years this year. A milestone which has never before been reached in British history and probably never will be again. Your vitriol is preventing you from seeing how momentous it is.

Not vitriol. It's my common sense that lets me see what a momentous disgrace it is to fanny around with platinum jubilees fawning over rich layabouts while people are going to foodbanks, burying relatives due to covid and trying to keep a roof over their heads. This isn't 1945, the queen is not a unifying figure and she needs to keep quiet and go quietly, along with her revolting second son.

I think what you're doing is called projecting? Your own fury that some British people despise your idols. Your rage that some people just will not tolerate the continued taxpayer funding of colonialists, racists, fraudsters, Nazi sympathisers, nonces and spongers on balconies.

I sincerely hope we never, ever celebrate another "milestone" like this. The Windsor "legacy" belongs in the history books.

Swipe left for the next trending thread