Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

That every one has forgotten they all hated Camilla?

281 replies

Binjob118 · 27/02/2023 22:15

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.

OP posts:
Maireas · 28/02/2023 16:42

Yes, and I respect the fact that she's never complained about it, never played the victim. Just carved out a role and promoted good causes.
(Ducks down under parapet away from Diana fans...)

Americano75 · 28/02/2023 17:07

She may never have 'complained' publicly, but she's always been skilled at getting her side out there.

I never liked Diana, but the older I get the sorrier I feel for her.

JudgeJ · 28/02/2023 19:05

Maireas · 28/02/2023 12:35

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

The story was that she approached Tiggy at a party and said 'Sorry about the baby' to her,
As someone old enough to remember the whole Charles and Diana fiasco from the engagement onwards my friends thought I was mad to never like Diana, there was always something about her that seemed a bit off. In the whole thing of broken marriages etc between them the one person who behaved with dignity throughout was Camilla, even when she was totally vilified she never spoke out.

PlaitBilledDuckyPuss · 28/02/2023 19:14

Paul Burrell's book 'A Royal Duty' contains a full account of what happened between Diana and Tiggy.

Livingtothefull · 28/02/2023 19:42

JemimaTiggywinkles · 28/02/2023 12:28

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.

That is correct. The concept of divorce didn't even exist at the time and Charles' situation is unprecedented.

(Btw having never actually been married to Henry, Anne should not have been executed for adultery - no wonder it is confusing!)

PleaseJustText · 28/02/2023 21:00

Americano75 · 28/02/2023 17:07

She may never have 'complained' publicly, but she's always been skilled at getting her side out there.

I never liked Diana, but the older I get the sorrier I feel for her.

But why? The older I've got, the less I feel sorry for her. She was young when she married Charles but even in her 30's she was petty and immature. The more that comes out, the less I feel for her.

Americano75 · 28/02/2023 21:03

PleaseJustText · 28/02/2023 21:00

But why? The older I've got, the less I feel sorry for her. She was young when she married Charles but even in her 30's she was petty and immature. The more that comes out, the less I feel for her.

Show quote history

Why? Because as time has gone by the extent of the manipulation of a fragile 19 year old has become more apparent. The woman wasn't a saint, she was human. It's pretty appalling.

LizzieW1969 · 28/02/2023 23:23

Surely, though, since Diana had already died when Charles married Camilla, the divorce was no longer applicable in law anyway. Although it was still a massive hurdle in the eyes of much of the British public.

The impediment was the fact that he was marrying a divorcee. This had never happened before; Edward VIII was forced to abdicate in order to marry Wallis Simpson. (Much to the relief of the government at the time, obviously, in view of his Nazi sympathies.)

Livingtothefull · 01/03/2023 08:20

I don't think it is appropriate or fair to rubbish Diana in order to 'big up' Camilla. Nobody is claiming Diana was blameless - but she died over 25 years ago and doesn't need to impress anyone any more. Frankly, if I had been treated as she was at the time by her husband & his mistress I am not sure how blameless I would be.

And I don't think hatred comes into it - a lot of people are just disappointed that the monarch & his wife are so unimpressive, as demonstrated by their past actions. If they weren't public figures, none of it would matter.

ReneBumsWombats · 01/03/2023 08:26

a lot of people are just disappointed that the monarch & his wife are so unimpressive, as demonstrated by their past actions.

They have that much in common (haha) with many, many people. It was a horrible situation all round with no perfect villains and no perfect victims, as usual.

It was almost 40 years ago. Margaret Thatcher was PM and Agadoo was in the charts. The kids are now middle aged and have children of their own. Accepting it and moving on doesn't mean you think it was right, it just means you don't see the benefit in lifelong gripes against people you don't know.

WiIson · 01/03/2023 08:27

Livingtothefull · 01/03/2023 08:20

I don't think it is appropriate or fair to rubbish Diana in order to 'big up' Camilla. Nobody is claiming Diana was blameless - but she died over 25 years ago and doesn't need to impress anyone any more. Frankly, if I had been treated as she was at the time by her husband & his mistress I am not sure how blameless I would be.

And I don't think hatred comes into it - a lot of people are just disappointed that the monarch & his wife are so unimpressive, as demonstrated by their past actions. If they weren't public figures, none of it would matter.

Yep.

Jedsnewstar · 01/03/2023 08:27

The tabloids didn’t seem to like Kate either and people seem to forget that. It was only when Harry married someone they hated more that she became the perfect English rose. Tabloids are garbage!

ReneBumsWombats · 01/03/2023 11:26

They started liking Kate just fine once she got engaged. They started absolutely fawning once they needed a foil for Meghan The Evil Overlord.

Livingtothefull · 01/03/2023 13:58

a lot of people are just disappointed that the monarch & his wife are so unimpressive, as demonstrated by their past actions.

They have that much in common (haha) with many, many people. It was a horrible situation all round with no perfect villains and no perfect victims, as usual.

They may indeed have this in common with many people....but those other people are not hugely privileged public figures. Nobody is ever blameless but probably most people reading this have not behaved as badly as they have: dupe a 19-year-old girl into marriage and betray her with their adultery throughout said marriage. Call her a 'ridiculous creature' when she reacts to her treatment. Most people who admitted behaviour like this would be slaughtered on here.

And it may have happened many years ago...but both of them are still benefiting to this day from their actions. Again, this matters because of the public roles they hold.

Verv · 01/03/2023 14:42

Ive never disliked Camilla, quite the opposite. She does a lot of good stuff for women / DV etc.

Americano75 · 01/03/2023 16:01

Livingtothefull · 01/03/2023 13:58

a lot of people are just disappointed that the monarch & his wife are so unimpressive, as demonstrated by their past actions.

They have that much in common (haha) with many, many people. It was a horrible situation all round with no perfect villains and no perfect victims, as usual.

They may indeed have this in common with many people....but those other people are not hugely privileged public figures. Nobody is ever blameless but probably most people reading this have not behaved as badly as they have: dupe a 19-year-old girl into marriage and betray her with their adultery throughout said marriage. Call her a 'ridiculous creature' when she reacts to her treatment. Most people who admitted behaviour like this would be slaughtered on here.

And it may have happened many years ago...but both of them are still benefiting to this day from their actions. Again, this matters because of the public roles they hold.

She was 'mad', 'deranged', 'paranoid', 'knew what she was getting into'. Tale as old as time.

WiIson · 01/03/2023 17:13

She was 'mad', 'deranged', 'paranoid', 'knew what she was getting into'. Tale as old as time.

Even as a 17 year old. Any other 17 year old who had been manipulated into marriage, deceived, seemingly used to bear children, would be considered a victim. Apart from 17 year old Diana.

Livingtothefull · 01/03/2023 18:12

Verv · 01/03/2023 14:42

Ive never disliked Camilla, quite the opposite. She does a lot of good stuff for women / DV etc.

Camilla had lunch with Jeremy Clarkson (an old friend of hers) days before his violently misogynistic diatribe against Meghan. And neither she nor any other member of the RF said a word against it. So not so much against violence against women then.

TheObstinateHeadstrongGirl · 01/03/2023 18:41

Livingtothefull · 01/03/2023 18:12

Camilla had lunch with Jeremy Clarkson (an old friend of hers) days before his violently misogynistic diatribe against Meghan. And neither she nor any other member of the RF said a word against it. So not so much against violence against women then.

Show quote history

No she didn’t.

They were invited to the same event along with hundreds of other celebs.

No evidence that she had lunch with him FGS.

And the RF don’t put out statements in response to every bit of criticism. Nor should they. The Sussexes have very publicly flounced and have got their own press team now. If they wanted to make a statement they could have, rather than expecting mummy and daddy to tell the world what a naughty man Mr Clarkson is and how so very cross they are.

Or should Camilla have hopped in a Time Machine, turned back time and not attended the event?

Do depressing that when a man makes misogynistic comments about a woman it must be her MILs fault 🙄

TheObstinateHeadstrongGirl · 01/03/2023 18:44

WiIson · 01/03/2023 17:13

She was 'mad', 'deranged', 'paranoid', 'knew what she was getting into'. Tale as old as time.

Even as a 17 year old. Any other 17 year old who had been manipulated into marriage, deceived, seemingly used to bear children, would be considered a victim. Apart from 17 year old Diana.

She was 19 when they started dating, 20 when they married.

TheObstinateHeadstrongGirl · 01/03/2023 18:45

Jedsnewstar · 01/03/2023 08:27

The tabloids didn’t seem to like Kate either and people seem to forget that. It was only when Harry married someone they hated more that she became the perfect English rose. Tabloids are garbage!

This!!

People forget how much stick Catherine used to get not only when they were saying but in the early days of their marriage. The press were vile and only left her alone when they had a new person to torture.

WiIson · 01/03/2023 19:00

TheObstinateHeadstrongGirl · 01/03/2023 18:44

She was 19 when they started dating, 20 when they married.

Show quote history

Oh that makes it ok then...

Livingtothefull · 01/03/2023 19:11

'No she didn’t.

They were invited to the same event along with hundreds of other celebs.

No evidence that she had lunch with him FGS'.

Well she did. The lunch was at a restaurant so I seriously doubt that there were hundreds there; both Clarkson and Piers Morgan attended. Would you honestly be happy with your MIL socialising with two people who had very publicly expressed their hatred of you on numerous occasions?

'And the RF don’t put out statements in response to every bit of criticism.'

They often do. They issued statements when they want to sue as the one denying that Kate Middleton had hair extensions or Botox - but not on this occasion.

'Nor should they. The Sussexes have very publicly flounced and have got their own press team now. If they wanted to make a statement they could have'. They did make a statement in response to JC's non apology. Your use of language like 'publicly flounced' makes clear where your sympathies & antipathies lie.

'Do depressing that when a man makes misogynistic comments about a woman it must be her MILs fault 🙄'.

No it is not her fault. But I flatter myself that if a man said publicly that I was hated 'on a cellular level' and should be paraded through streets and pelted with excrement, my MIL would have something to say in defence of me. Most normal families are like that.

TheObstinateHeadstrongGirl · 01/03/2023 19:11

WiIson · 01/03/2023 19:00

Oh that makes it ok then...

Show quote history

I didn’t say that did 8. But in the interests of getting things right I don’t see the use in lowering her age to below and adult age

TheObstinateHeadstrongGirl · 01/03/2023 19:16

@Livingtothefull you make it sound like she went out her way to have lunch with Morgan and Clarkson. They’re ree at the same event with many other celebrities. Meghan has trashed her very publicly - why should Camilla always avoid going wherever someone who doesn’t like Meghan goes? She owes her nothing.

They issued statements when they want to sue as the one denying that Kate Middleton had hair extensions or Botox - but not on this occasion

When did they issue a statement about hair extensions?

They didn’t issue a statement saying “Kate doesn’t get Botox”. A Aesthetician had doctored photos and posted them to his social media saying KM is his client and came in today. The statement confirmed the pictures were photoshopped.

But I flatter myself that if a man said publicly that I was hated 'on a cellular level' and should be paraded through streets and pelted with excrement, my MIL would have something to say in defence of me. Most normal families are like that.

Youve answered it yourself - they aren’t normal and it isn’t feasible for them to rebut every unsavoury article. M&H are in their 40’s they can stick up for themselves. No earthly reason why an institution they have openly left, then trashed, needs to defend them publicly. It doesn’t mean privately that Camilla or Charles agree with Clarkson / for all we know they may have reached out to Meghan personally. But literally what good would a statement breaking protocol do? What would it achieve?