Page 30 | 'Queen' Camilla

Replitad · 2023-04-04T22:12:17+00:00

I wouldn't have called myself a republican before now but I think the 'Queen' Camilla thing has tipped me over the edge. Pretty audacious considering their history and I think a lot of the public won't agree. I certainly won't be celebrating or even watching coronation.

Beantag · 07/04/2023 07:03

Possiblynotever · 07/04/2023 06:51

So, basically, we are all happy with a "king" and "queen" who had an affair before and throught his "fairyrale" marriage, bullying a 20 year old girl when they were well in their thirties. It's OK. The reasoning behind this is "shit happens, move on" and " she makes him happy " ( the irony of the sexism here...)
I have never seen MN move on on mistresses, but hey, Camilla obviously has different qualities.

I don't care, no.

Possiblynotever · 07/04/2023 07:14

Ok, then let's say that Britain is a country where bullying is fine and affairs outside of wedlock are fine.
MN, please, stop all those awful threads on OW, deranged families, bullying of girls that are barely out of teenager years, stop all the hypocrisy: it is acceptable, it is fine. Just play the "long" game.
Move on.

MaggieFS · 07/04/2023 07:22

Well I for one have never been part of the holier than thou, one is ever allowed to move on from an affair, alleged mn crew.

It doesn't make it ok, it doesn't excuse it. But none of us know what apologies, or otherwise were said. None of us know, actually, once C&D were married what happened behind closed doors.

It was a hell of a long time ago, and since they married, she has conducted herself well, and worked hard for good causes, and I agree with the pp that she's the most normal one of the lot.

TheObstinateHeadstrongGirl · 07/04/2023 10:10

ArdeteiMasazxu · 07/04/2023 05:24

You're assuming that birth order doesn't affect either personality or the amount of effort that is put into public perception.

If Andrew had been born first but with the same personality, weaknesses and desires - firstly his status as heir would have a huge effect on what he'd have the opportunity to do, and the amount of resources available to be poured into a cover-up/whitewash, if needed, would be orders of magnitude better.

Charles may fundamentally be no nicer a person than Andrew but his more privileged status (a) makes it easier for him to fulfil his desires and (b) gives the establishment more motive to ensure a positive PR spin on everything.

It's a hugely dysfunctional family and must be horrible to live in, but it is the established role of the younger brother of the heir to be less responsible and diligent than their elder brother, to live a life of debauchery, and to be denigrated in the press as a scoundrel regularly, in order to make their elder brother look good. I am sure this will be just as true of Prince Louis in a couple of decades time.

Show quote history

You are absolutely right.

In the same way I imagine wouldn’t be such a reserved dullard if he were second born or Harry wouldn’t be a petulant child if he were first born!

I imagine had Andrew, with the same personality style, was first born, we’d have had another Uncle David on our hands.

TheObstinateHeadstrongGirl · 07/04/2023 10:11

Possiblynotever · 07/04/2023 06:51

So, basically, we are all happy with a "king" and "queen" who had an affair before and throught his "fairyrale" marriage, bullying a 20 year old girl when they were well in their thirties. It's OK. The reasoning behind this is "shit happens, move on" and " she makes him happy " ( the irony of the sexism here...)
I have never seen MN move on on mistresses, but hey, Camilla obviously has different qualities.

Really?

From what I see, mistresses on MN are blameless and it’s all about the men.

I just wish people would admit they’d be more forgiving of Camilla if she was more aesthetically pleasing

TheObstinateHeadstrongGirl · 07/04/2023 10:13

Possiblynotever · 07/04/2023 07:14

Ok, then let's say that Britain is a country where bullying is fine and affairs outside of wedlock are fine.
MN, please, stop all those awful threads on OW, deranged families, bullying of girls that are barely out of teenager years, stop all the hypocrisy: it is acceptable, it is fine. Just play the "long" game.
Move on.

FGS they didn’t nick Diana’s lunch money, it was a marriage where BOTH husband and wife began copping off with others after a few years. Charles didn’t marry a Girl Next Door type, she was an aristocrat who grew up in wildly different circles to the vast majority of us, and whilst he’d have got his fertile virgin, she also got the ultimate prize of a Prince. Neither were ever in love. That is clear as day, but they both reaped benefits.

Rosula · 07/04/2023 10:48

AskMeMore · 07/04/2023 01:00

You say that as if it is generally accepted that it is fine to be married and have an affair and then marry your mistress. It really is not seen as okay by most people.
And even on MN whenever someone talks about this kind of set up they are always warned that the new wife has created a position for a mistress.

If you are divorced, why isn't it fine to marry whoever you like?

Rosula · 07/04/2023 10:51

AFlockOfTigers · 06/04/2023 23:28

Camilla had a living spouse though. That's why they were married in a civil ceremony.

Show quote history

The C of E clearly doesn't have a problem with it, though, otherwise they wouldn't be having a C of E coronation. So why should the rest of us?

Possiblynotever · 07/04/2023 11:28

I think the CofE has a problem with it.
Their marriage had a final blessing but was not a full service.

AFlockOfTigers · 07/04/2023 11:46

Rosula · 07/04/2023 10:48

If you are divorced, why isn't it fine to marry whoever you like?

Show quote history

From the CofE's view, it's because if you marry your affair partner and that affair led to the breakup of your marriage then it suggests you're not repentant.

Opinionsinteresting2me · 07/04/2023 12:16

It seems many of you are missing an important point. Charles and Camilla deliberately and callously decided to choose a young innocent virgin to con into believing he wanted to marry her. They knew they intended to carry on with their relationship regardless. Diana was there simply to give Charles heirs and they hoodwinked her then she was killed. Are these the sort of people we want as "King and Queen" being paid by taxpayers money to live in luxury while the country is struggling for money? I think not.

Opinionsinteresting2me · 07/04/2023 12:32

Plus Diana did not have affairs until she realised she was in a lonely and useless situation with no chance of a happy marriage with Charles. Again Charles hoodwinked everyone and got the media to make out Diana was paranoid and a man chaser while also getting the press to whitewash Camilla.

BMW6 · 07/04/2023 14:02

Completely barking

IcedPurple · 07/04/2023 14:06

Opinionsinteresting2me · 07/04/2023 12:32

Plus Diana did not have affairs until she realised she was in a lonely and useless situation with no chance of a happy marriage with Charles. Again Charles hoodwinked everyone and got the media to make out Diana was paranoid and a man chaser while also getting the press to whitewash Camilla.

Camilla's husband was a notorious philanderer, supposedly right from the start of their marriage.

There is no evidence Camilla had an extramarital relationship with anybody other than Charles, but Diana had several, often with married men. By your logic, surely Camilla is less 'guilty' than Diana?

Possiblynotever · 07/04/2023 15:35

Diana was barely 20, inexperienced, and she was conned into a terrible marriage. She was treated like a breeding cow.
But this is OK, because she comes from an aristocratic family.
And it is OK for her former husband and the now queen to head a Church, because it started with Henry VIII who beheaded some of his wives. A church with 80 M followers has little morals and nothing changed.
Following you lot, slavery was ok, children hunger is ok.
Everything is ok, it happens and move on.

IcedPurple · 07/04/2023 16:02

There's a difference between saying 'everything is OK' and saying that people need to be punished for the rest of their lives because of their poor behaviour decades ago.

Inkanta · 07/04/2023 16:02

Opinionsinteresting2me · 07/04/2023 12:32

Plus Diana did not have affairs until she realised she was in a lonely and useless situation with no chance of a happy marriage with Charles. Again Charles hoodwinked everyone and got the media to make out Diana was paranoid and a man chaser while also getting the press to whitewash Camilla.

I hear you 0pinionsinteresting2me

Chuckydidit · 07/04/2023 16:15

IcedPurple · 07/04/2023 16:02

There's a difference between saying 'everything is OK' and saying that people need to be punished for the rest of their lives because of their poor behaviour decades ago.

People don’t change. I can’t believe that people fall for this bollocks.

IcedPurple · 07/04/2023 16:22

Chuckydidit · 07/04/2023 16:15

People don’t change. I can’t believe that people fall for this bollocks.

Show quote history

Is there evidence that either Charles or Camilla has cheated in their 17 years of marriage?

And it's not about people 'changing'. It's about the notion that people are to be always defined by something they did decades ago.

In any case, it barely matters. Camilla is HM The Queen whether people like it not. I suspect the vast majority don't much care one way or the other.

AskMeMore · 07/04/2023 16:45

I agree Camilla and Charles are Queen and King whatever they behave like and whatever others think about them.
But I agree that people do not really change.

TheObstinateHeadstrongGirl · 07/04/2023 16:49

Opinionsinteresting2me · 07/04/2023 12:16

It seems many of you are missing an important point. Charles and Camilla deliberately and callously decided to choose a young innocent virgin to con into believing he wanted to marry her. They knew they intended to carry on with their relationship regardless. Diana was there simply to give Charles heirs and they hoodwinked her then she was killed. Are these the sort of people we want as "King and Queen" being paid by taxpayers money to live in luxury while the country is struggling for money? I think not.

FGS the drama llamas need to stop treating Diana like she was some sort of trafficking victim. She was young but not a young bride for the time, many women got married at ages 18-21. She entered the marriage willingly, not in love but knowing what the role would entail.

TheObstinateHeadstrongGirl · 07/04/2023 16:50

Opinionsinteresting2me · 07/04/2023 12:32

Plus Diana did not have affairs until she realised she was in a lonely and useless situation with no chance of a happy marriage with Charles. Again Charles hoodwinked everyone and got the media to make out Diana was paranoid and a man chaser while also getting the press to whitewash Camilla.

Did Diana tell you that herself?

Lol at Charles being able to influence what’s printed in the press. That’s not how the British press works. If he’d done that there wouldn’t have been the thousands of stories about how ugly Camilla is.

nomoremerlot · 07/04/2023 16:51

Opinionsinteresting2me · 07/04/2023 12:16

It seems many of you are missing an important point. Charles and Camilla deliberately and callously decided to choose a young innocent virgin to con into believing he wanted to marry her. They knew they intended to carry on with their relationship regardless. Diana was there simply to give Charles heirs and they hoodwinked her then she was killed. Are these the sort of people we want as "King and Queen" being paid by taxpayers money to live in luxury while the country is struggling for money? I think not.

Doesn't matter what we want, the RF are still going, fucking shameful IMO!

Possiblynotever · 07/04/2023 17:31

@IcedIcedPurple punishment? Not taking a royal role is a punishment? Not heading a church out of hypocrisy is a punishment?
There are worst "punishments" for callous behaviour

IcedPurple · 07/04/2023 17:41

Possiblynotever · 07/04/2023 17:31

@IcedIcedPurple punishment? Not taking a royal role is a punishment? Not heading a church out of hypocrisy is a punishment?
There are worst "punishments" for callous behaviour

Quite apart from any arguments over whether anyone should be 'entitled' to being royal, if you are entitled to being queen or head of the Church of England, then yes, not having those roles due to behaviour from decades ago would be punishment.

Putting aside the royal element for a moment, how do you believe 'ordinary' people should be treated if they had an extramarital affair decades ago? If Diana were alive today, how should she be treated because of her 'callous behaviour' with other women's husbands?