That every one has forgotten they all hated Camilla?

[Binjob118]

I'm very puzzled why no one talks about how hated Camilla was the 80s/90s?? The tabloids absolutely tore her apart. But now she is 'Queen' and we have all conveniently forgotten. I have no personal interest in the royal family, I'm just perplexed.

YABU.
I am old enough to have watched the 1981 Royal Wedding, but I have never hated Camilla.
It was obvious from quite early on that the situation was difficult for all 3 of them, and Camilla was treated extremely unfairly by the press.
I think she seems to be a fantastic woman, and it's great that she is now Queen. Perhaps the press have finally realised that too.....

The same Church of England that came into existence because a monarch wanted to divorce his wife and marry his mistress? That Church of England?

Not really seeing the problem with that one tbh.

The same Church of England that came into existence because a monarch wanted to divorce his wife and marry his mistress?

No. The Church of England that came about because he wanted to ANNUL the marriage. Charles and Diana never sought annulment.

But what's the airbrushing? Do you want evety tabloid story about the King to start off with a disclaimer about how they used to vilify Camilla but now they think she's alright?

It's really no secret that all those stories were out there and lots of people did hate Camilla. But many of us also didn't care then or now.

I was 18 when Diana died and utterly baffled by the coverage of it and all.those acres of flowers. It was really weird to my friends and family as to why it was such a big deal.

Things change, the papers care less, the public cares less. Lots of people are still obsessively hating Camilla and claiming she isn't the Queen which is hilarious.

Charles's mobile phone was hacked and a private conversation of an affectionate nature between Charles and Camilla was widely published in the press. Charles jokingly said he would like to be Camilla's tampon, amongst other things.

He didn't say anything sillier than the sort of things most people might say to a lover, but of course the press had a field day with it - you could even ring a premium number to hear the actual recording, courtesy of The Sun ...

Because he had no grounds for annulment.

The pertinent bit isn’t the difference between divorce and annulment though, it’s the bit where he wanted one in order to marry his term mistress.

Even outside of that, the Church of England is no stranger to being headed by adulterers.

This!!

Because he had no grounds for annulment.
The pertinent bit isn’t the difference between divorce and annulment though, it’s the bit where he wanted one in order to marry his term mistress.

It is pertinent, because what Henry got was an annulment. So in the eyes of the church he was never married and Anne Boleyn wasn't, therefore, his mistress. It is pertinent because until Charles III, no head of the church of england had been divorced. It matters because so many people seem to think that Charles' situation was essentially a repeat of Henry VIII, and it wasn't. In theological terms, divorce and annulment are completely different.

If you’re talking about it the ‘three of us in this marriage’ statement from the Bashir interview Diana wasn’t talking about Camilla - she thought Charles was having an affair with Tiggy Legge Bourke at the time because she’d been led to believe that by unscrupulous Bashir to get the interview.

It’s why the BBC issued an apology and damages earlier this year.

Didn't she accuse Tiggy of having an abortion?
It really got very complicated and unpleasant.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62250479
Here's the link.
Poor Tiggy. Wretched situation.

Different day. Same old

In theological terms, he had no grounds for a divorce. Instead of accepting this, in a self-serving move he broke with Rome and made himself the head of a church. You’re arguing semantics, as if the point hinges on that. If Charles had fought for an annulment the reaction would not have been kinder, and in fact would have arguably been worse due to the impact on the standing of his children.

However, even if you want to dismiss the basis on which the Church of England was established, it doesn’t change the fact that the Church of England is no stranger to being headed by an adulterer. Henry VIII was habitually unfaithful in his marriages, Anne Boleyn although unique in impact, was not unique in being his mistress.

I heard that she and Charles don't live together that much now. Recipe for a great relationship especially at their stage in life when set in their ways I suppose. But it's not an avenue that's open to many - to have the best of both worlds I mean.

A part time husband/wife is the key to it all it seems. It's that bit of their lives that I find interesting, but nothing, and I mean nothing else about them interests me one bit. They don't care about me do they?

Blimey, it was three to four decades ago and only anyone with issues “hated” . Most of it was media manipulation.

move on op.

This. And I never deified Diana either.

Both just women, each with some brilliant aspects to their personalities, and some flaws too. Like everyone else.

Nan's back! 😂👌👌

You’re arguing semantics, as if the point hinges on that.

Well, given that people claim "Charles should have been allowed to divorce and marry his mistress because Henry VIII was" it actually is very important that Henry wasn't allowed to divorce and then marry is mistress. I'm not doubting that going for an annulment would probably have been even more unpopular than a divorce in the 1990s - but even that is relevant. Annulments aren't very popular these days and that tells us something about how society has changed. I don't think we should just ignore these things.

However, even if you want to dismiss the basis on which the Church of England was established

I'm not dismissing it, I'm doing the opposite - I am correcting a misconception. Henry VIII broke with Rome to give himself an annulment, not a divorce. This fact is entirely relevant to our understanding of English (and British) history and its impacts are still being felt today.

I’m aware of the difference between annulment and divorce, and that technically he only had three wives.

He awarded himself an annulment after repeatedly being denied one from Rome, given there were no doctrinal grounds. What’s laughable is the fact that after this he remained conventionally Catholic in how he practiced his personal faith.

Even if you are of a mind to believe that an annulment makes his behaviour somehow more moral than divorce, the point remains that the founder of the Church of England was an habitual adulterer. Many heads of the Church of England have indeed been adulterers. That an adulterer is the head of the Church of England is neither uncommon nor particularly shocking.

Anyway, I don’t see why I should hate someone I don’t know because they had an affair with someone I don’t know, cheating on someone else I don’t know. I don’t care 🤷🏻‍♀️

@Eyerollcentral I was being sarcastic given the circumstances and the play on words. Ffs

Don't be stupid OP, it's certainly not true that everyone hated Camilla, no matter how much the tabloids tried to whip up some daft buggers into a teeth gnashing frenzy.

I reckon most people couldn't give a toss about any of it. It's only a tiny number that got all riled up about her, some people are vulnerable to that sort of peculiarity in being overinvested in the lives of people in the Public eye.

The Diana Worship and Camilla Haters are vocal and still bang on about it, but they really do not represent a majority view.

Exactly this and she was busy playing away aswell she was no Saint

She's certainly come a long way from being pelted with bread rolls in her local supermarket to Queen Consort.

I don't 'hate' Camilla but I don't find her or her man very impressive as people, despite the nice PR job that's been done for them.