Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Can't help thinking King Charles is selfish

1000 replies

Eieiom · 09/05/2024 11:12

Standing back, looking at the Harry situation, I can't help thinking that Charles is the root of all the family toxicity.

He had an affair while married to Diana, which led to their divorce and much unhappiness on her side. After her early death, his children were obviously in a lot of pain. The remote parenting style of the RF probably did little to soften this.
He's managed to marry his affair partner and now he's cutting off one of his sons.
Harry just looks like a really hurt person acting out to me. In most families, they would just be tolerated and forgiven.
I think the RF look very cold.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
10
YaMuvva · 10/05/2024 11:01

KimberleyClark · 10/05/2024 10:52

Most European countries’ monarchies are far more modest in scale than ours.

I do think that will change through KCIII reign. But our RF is by far the most famous and I think we should be proud of that

BIossomtoes · 10/05/2024 11:02

I’m astonished it took 32 pages for Versailles to be mentioned. Anyone would think it was the only tourist attraction in the world so often does it pop up.

YaMuvva · 10/05/2024 11:02

CaptainCarrotsBigSword · 10/05/2024 10:52

Yes, I'd agree with this. We were on holiday at the time of the Queen's funeral and so many locals wanted to talk to us about the queen and how sad they were that she had died. One bloke even pulled out his wallet to show us the ten pound note he had kept from visiting the UK, because of the portrait of the queen on it, saying he would keep it forever because she was the greatest queen!

Oh we were actually in Spain and the locals watched the funeral on big screens in local bars and tavernas. It was very odd watching her funeral whilst also sunbathing!

KimberleyClark · 10/05/2024 11:04

BIossomtoes · 10/05/2024 11:02

I’m astonished it took 32 pages for Versailles to be mentioned. Anyone would think it was the only tourist attraction in the world so often does it pop up.

My point was that tourists want to see palaces regardless of whether they are inhabited by living Royals. BP is more of an administrative building these days anyway.

YaMuvva · 10/05/2024 11:05

KimberleyClark · 10/05/2024 10:53

More people seek out Versailles.

BP is open little more than 2 months of the years whereas Versailles is open all year round.

The number of people who stand outside Buckingham Palace is not counted, only people who are but admission tickets, which is why the disparity looks so great

YaMuvva · 10/05/2024 11:06

SallyWD · 10/05/2024 10:57

Not sure I agree with this. I've also lived in other countries and have family abroad to spend a lot of time overseas. I'd say that with the exception of Americans, no one seems particularly interested in our royal family. In fact, if ever the royals are mentioned their eyes seem to glaze over. It's not something they care about.
And yes, tourists may go and look at Buckingham Palace but that's just because it's one of the major sights of London. You go to London and you see Buckingham Palace, Big Ben, Trafalgar Square etc. If you're in Washington you'll probably look at The White House. It doesn't mean you're a fan of whoever the president is.

you done have to be a fan but if it’s enough to go and see what it all looks like then it is generating interest

YaMuvva · 10/05/2024 11:08

KimberleyClark · 10/05/2024 11:04

My point was that tourists want to see palaces regardless of whether they are inhabited by living Royals. BP is more of an administrative building these days anyway.

Edited

Yes if you go and do the BP tour all you see are water coolers and work stations <sarcasm>

BP also has limited ticketing entry

CookStrait · 10/05/2024 11:11

Camilla’s the problem, but Child Charles should man up & sort her out. But in saying that Harry’s better off without them.

KimberleyClark · 10/05/2024 11:15

YaMuvva · 10/05/2024 11:08

Yes if you go and do the BP tour all you see are water coolers and work stations <sarcasm>

BP also has limited ticketing entry

I meant it’s not a royal home. But I’m sure you knew that anyway.

YaMuvva · 10/05/2024 11:16

CookStrait · 10/05/2024 11:11

Camilla’s the problem, but Child Charles should man up & sort her out. But in saying that Harry’s better off without them.

Why is she the problem?
what do you mean he should sort her out?

They’re better off without Harry but he NEEDS them as there are a finite number of son stories he can flog before he runs out

YaMuvva · 10/05/2024 11:17

KimberleyClark · 10/05/2024 11:15

I meant it’s not a royal home. But I’m sure you knew that anyway.

The part open to the public is not the home because, well, people live in the home part.

However, the parts that are open are beautiful to see, very grand and some interesting art and artefacts. Nice visit if you can manage to catch it

KimberleyClark · 10/05/2024 11:20

YaMuvva · 10/05/2024 11:17

The part open to the public is not the home because, well, people live in the home part.

However, the parts that are open are beautiful to see, very grand and some interesting art and artefacts. Nice visit if you can manage to catch it

Who actually lives there? Charles and Camilla live in Clarence House. BP is only used for ceremonial occasions,hosting foreign heads of state etc.

YaMuvva · 10/05/2024 11:22

KimberleyClark · 10/05/2024 11:20

Who actually lives there? Charles and Camilla live in Clarence House. BP is only used for ceremonial occasions,hosting foreign heads of state etc.

Doesn’t Andrew live there?? Charles has tried to kick him out into Frogmore cottage but he won’t budge - again I’m on some pretty strong painkillers after surgery but I don’t think I made this up 😂

BIossomtoes · 10/05/2024 11:25

YaMuvva · 10/05/2024 11:22

Doesn’t Andrew live there?? Charles has tried to kick him out into Frogmore cottage but he won’t budge - again I’m on some pretty strong painkillers after surgery but I don’t think I made this up 😂

He used to have an office there. But, given he no longer has anything remotely resembling work, has been kicked out. He still lives in Royal Lodge I think.

DramaLlamaBangBang · 10/05/2024 11:56

KellyMaureen · 10/05/2024 09:38

@DramaLlamaBangBang You mean literally, he was on a bike cycling round married women's houses? I am just picturing Charlie in his cycling gear

😂
It was Kanga Tryron he was also shagging. I tried to link to the article but ot went wrong!

DramaLlamaBangBang · 10/05/2024 12:03

Hairychops77892 · 10/05/2024 10:29

Because the message it sends out is that certain sections of society; royalty, those with titles, hereditary peers in the House of Lords, even though there aren’t many of those left, all of the elite members of society which form a large section of the establishment, somehow deserve veneration and respect above that which is accorded the ordinary man in the street.

Yes they are representing the UK, it is not the people themselves that are venerated, but nonetheless it sends the message that hereditary wealth and status is of more value than that attained by merit. And I think it js precisely this message which holds us back and is anachronistic in 2024.

Surely people can see that it is no longer fitting for the “high born” who have access to twelve large homes and estates, some of which are owned personally, to be visiting the underprivileged?

Imho it no longer sits well and is no longer appropriate or, for that matter, respectful to those people?

And wealthy people engaging in massive tax avoidance and then saying ' well my lifestyle work is to solve homelessness/ sort out early years education' when both those things need massive levels of resources into education and mental health support ( paid for by taxes) allows politicians to stand there like nodding dogs being photographed next to Royalty but doing nothing. I do think The Princes Trust and the Duke of Edinburgh scheme is far more than that, but Charles is not the future of the Monarchy. William is, and he hasn't done anything much at all, apart from tell people about what a ' hands on dad' he is so he can't do any work for 4 months of the year!

ThoseBlueRememberedHills · 10/05/2024 12:16

YaMuvva · 10/05/2024 10:43

No aristocratic single lady would have laughed at the Prince of Wales proposing to them 🙄 it’s what half of them would give an arm for.

I agree but in that case they need to accept the way the aristocracy works. They are faithful until they have the heir and the spare or two, after that, affairs are the norm and on both sides.

D made the mistake of expecting to have this match AND love. Too many Barbara Cartlands maybe?

Livingtothefull · 10/05/2024 12:20

BIossomtoes · 10/05/2024 10:17

I don’t think any other country laughs at our heritage. That certainly isn’t reflected in the upturn in tourism that coincides with our big state occasions or the global viewing figures.

I agree that they don't laugh at our heritage - but our heritage & history is not dependent on the monarchy and will be there regardless of whether monarchy exists.

I am not convinced that the monarchy itself has a positive impact on tourism. The buildings & attractions associated with the monarchy will still be there even if monarchy is abolished. In fact they are likely to be more accessible to the public which might even benefit tourism.

But regardless of whether it does or doesn't: monarchy is a pernicious anachronism and needs to go.

Livingtothefull · 10/05/2024 12:25

DramaLlamaBangBang · 10/05/2024 12:03

And wealthy people engaging in massive tax avoidance and then saying ' well my lifestyle work is to solve homelessness/ sort out early years education' when both those things need massive levels of resources into education and mental health support ( paid for by taxes) allows politicians to stand there like nodding dogs being photographed next to Royalty but doing nothing. I do think The Princes Trust and the Duke of Edinburgh scheme is far more than that, but Charles is not the future of the Monarchy. William is, and he hasn't done anything much at all, apart from tell people about what a ' hands on dad' he is so he can't do any work for 4 months of the year!

Face it: William is lazy. He really does very little at all, no great projects or achievements to his name, his contributions are minimal - but will take the money thank you very much. The 'hands on dad' thing is particularly insulting to those of us who are juggling jobs and family responsibilities, together with financial concerns and cost of living issues.

I am not a particular fan of Charles but nobody has ever called him lazy and neither do I.

MyNameIsFine · 10/05/2024 12:44

Harry is is going to be 40 years old in a few months' time! Yes, he lost his mother in a tragic accident (not his dad's fault), but he now has a beautiful wife and two beautiful children. How long can a grown-up man go on blaming everything on his dad!!

potato57 · 10/05/2024 12:49

Runnerinthenight · 09/05/2024 17:37

Utter tosh! You know nothing about the woman, and they both appear to be fairly pleasant and affable when they're meeting people.

Have you been speaking to his medical professionals? That's a terrible thing to say!

She sneers at people all the time, and she outright laughed at Lindsay Hoyle's accent at the coronation.

it's a well-known fact among journalists that they can do deals with her, why do you think there was never anything negative in the media despite how much people loved diana? because she gave them other negative stories and quotes on people like harry to stop them publishing ones about her.

if you don't think it's a very well engineered media campaign spanning many decades you're deluded. there's a reason why people hate harry for doing nothing but don't hate camilla despite her affair and the problems she caused with charles and diana, when diana was one of the most loved and popular people in the uk.

MyNameIsFine · 10/05/2024 12:51

littlebitstuck2024 · 09/05/2024 11:24

Undoubtedly, Charles was a dick when he was younger but what's the point in banging on about it now? Charles and Diana were a terrible match. Neither party behaved favourably, not minimising the fact Charles was older and should have known better.

Diana died 27 years ago. Charles has been married to his "affair partner" for 19 years now. And Charles and Diana's "children" are aged 39 and 41.

At 39, Harry is an adult, a middle aged man. He's publicly betrayed his family. I don't blame Charles and William for being pissed off with him. Families have arguments and I'm sure Harry is justified in feeling the way he does about his family but he's out of order making it all so public - there was no need to write the book or do the interviews. I say all of that as someone who quite likes Harry, I think he did the right thing getting out of the royal family.

this

YaMuvva · 10/05/2024 12:52

ThoseBlueRememberedHills · 10/05/2024 12:16

I agree but in that case they need to accept the way the aristocracy works. They are faithful until they have the heir and the spare or two, after that, affairs are the norm and on both sides.

D made the mistake of expecting to have this match AND love. Too many Barbara Cartlands maybe?

Yes, maybe, and I wonder if Charles expected someone a little more pliant and obedient who was happy just wearing a crown and doing as she was told

YaMuvva · 10/05/2024 12:52

Livingtothefull · 10/05/2024 12:25

Face it: William is lazy. He really does very little at all, no great projects or achievements to his name, his contributions are minimal - but will take the money thank you very much. The 'hands on dad' thing is particularly insulting to those of us who are juggling jobs and family responsibilities, together with financial concerns and cost of living issues.

I am not a particular fan of Charles but nobody has ever called him lazy and neither do I.

TBF The Royal Foundation does amazing work

YaMuvva · 10/05/2024 12:56

potato57 · 10/05/2024 12:49

She sneers at people all the time, and she outright laughed at Lindsay Hoyle's accent at the coronation.

it's a well-known fact among journalists that they can do deals with her, why do you think there was never anything negative in the media despite how much people loved diana? because she gave them other negative stories and quotes on people like harry to stop them publishing ones about her.

if you don't think it's a very well engineered media campaign spanning many decades you're deluded. there's a reason why people hate harry for doing nothing but don't hate camilla despite her affair and the problems she caused with charles and diana, when diana was one of the most loved and popular people in the uk.

Edited

People don’t hate Camilla?

are you taking the piss?

Also do you have any proof of this other than the serial liar Harry’s word?

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.