Queen backs Camilla as future Queen Consort

[SnottyLottie]

news.sky.com/story/queen-reveals-sincere-wish-that-camilla-becomes-queen-consort-when-charles-is-king-in-platinum-jubilee-message-12533906

How do you think this will go down? And will the British public ever accept Camilla as Queen Consort?

@notanotheroneagain

That is the hypocrisy of the whole sham.

He has a choice to walk away.

Elizabeth's uncle did not become King when he married his side piece (who was the one married).

He did become king.

Then any statement is meaningless. We will say what you want to hear, then do what we want to do.
And that is the truth.

@Monopolyiscrap

Then any statement is meaningless. We will say what you want to hear, then do what we want to do. And that is the truth.

Things change. Life goes on. We all alter our thinking as we mature, learn and experience. So in that sense, yes, any statement any of us make is meaningless - but surely it counts for something at the time, if it is a genuine intent.

So you realise as you get older than things you once thought no longer apply. Is it right to go along with what you said at the time, or are you allowed to change your mind?

I know what I think is the mature response - but to say 'any statement is meaningless' is pretty silly.

@Monopolyiscrap

Then any statement is meaningless. We will say what you want to hear, then do what we want to do. And that is the truth.

Exactly.

The double standards of mums net is that when others royals change because of their particular circumstances, they are not given room for manoeuvre.

Yet everyone is so understanding when certain royals say something and changes her mind - even if they had let their original statement stand for years on end.

I do wonder what Charles negotiated for this announcement ?

To take care of Andrew somehow?

I do wonder what Charles negotiated for this announcement ?

Maybe the Queen doesn’t want anything in return. Maybe she realises that opinion has softened and moved on with regard to Camilla. Maybe she is fond of her and also wants to fulfil Charles wish that his wife be known as Queen. Maybe she is showing the quality of forgiveness and that it is the mature thing to do to not be intransigent in a position just for the sake of it.

The only thing that has changed, is they now think the public will accept this.
It is not like making a decision and circumstances change so you change your decision. The only thing that has changed is what they think they can get away with.
So yes it is dishonest.

It's not dishonest.

It's simply a reflection that we are not fossilised in 2005, and the views and policies of that time (across many people and organisations) have evolved and changed.

I suspect they said she would not be Queen back then, but with the intention to use PR to try and change the public view so she would be Queen. So yes dishonest.
Anyway, will leave this, you won't change my mind.

They've been assessing the situation over the passage of time.

It's a different world now to 2005, and it's foolish not to recognise that and to realise that everyone moves on. And what was right once may not always remain so,

That said, I suspect one key driver is the realisation that if there were ever a King + Princess combo (following a Queen + Prince) there might never be a King + Queen ever again. That probably wasn't even thought about until 2011, when another future consort married in.

The only thing that has changed, is they now think the public will accept this.

Well they are probably correct. The majority of the public will. So they have reassessed the situation and realised that it is ok to move on and change their approach. Lots of people do this. It is a sensible approach to life. It is not dishonest at all.

@Monopolyiscrap

The only thing that has changed, is they now think the public will accept this. It is not like making a decision and circumstances change so you change your decision. The only thing that has changed is what they think they can get away with. So yes it is dishonest.

Circumstances have changed. Time has gone by, Camilla has been working hard, people have realised she's OK and some at least of the more rabid Dianolaters have calmed down. A change in public opinion isn't some sort of exception and incapable of being a changed circumstance.

Nor is it dishonest. People change their minds about their opinions all the time, notably in relation to the way they vote in elections. That doesn't make them dishonest. Likewise governments change policies in accordance with swings in public opinion, and although many governments are undoubtedly dishonest it isn't for that reason.

No circumstances have not changed. Time has gone by and there are fewer people alive who remember Diana and care.
Yes they are dishonest.

The circumstances have changed! Britain in 2022 is very different to that of 2005.

The Duchess, who was a much-demonised but essentially unknown quantity has now had 17 years of experience in the supporting role, and is doing just fine. That's an important change in itself

No circumstances have not changed. Time has gone by and there are fewer people alive who remember Diana and care.
Yes they are dishonest.

I remember Diana. She died 24+ years ago. Many things about the world and my life have changed since then. I do not think in the same way that I did then. I have evolved my opinions and moved on. “Circumstances” have indeed changed in that the world has changed.

Nothing has changed.

We are constantly being reminded that no one can modernise this old institution. Nothing has changed, it's still the same Camilla who terrorised Diana MH.

The PR has come up with dodgy polls claiming the public is now accepting of her. They are not. The younger generation would have been shown by The Crown how she and Charles treated Diana. Artistic license was used, but it's all based on truth. Netflix followed it up by trending Diana In Her Own Words (they probably will do again for the next season), so anyone who forgot can remember.

In the meantime, true royalists do not believe a Head of England, as the special chosen born should have a deceitful home-wrecker and grudgingly accepted the marriage in the first place. They have a certain view of how the Queen should be like, especially at the heels of HMQE.
On SM the news went down like a lead balloon.

Homewreckers and mistresses must be happy to see someone like that can be elevated to queen status though.

@Monopolyiscrap

You said I suspect they said she would not be Queen back then, but with the intention to use PR to try and change the public view so she would be Queen. So yes dishonest. Anyway, will leave this, you won't change my mind.

Then you said No circumstances have not changed. Time has gone by and there are fewer people alive who remember Diana and care. Yes they are dishonest

So you didn't leave it......you changed your mind.

It's ok - it is allowed!

We are constantly being reminded that no one can modernise this old institution.

When exactly are we 'reminded' of that?

The royal family has always had to adapt to survive. The latest example is allowing girls to succeed to the throne ahead of younger brothers. Of course, it's still an inherently conservative institution, but if it hadn't moved with the times, the monarchy would have been gone decades or even centuries ago.

The younger generation would have been shown by The Crown how she and Charles treated Diana. Artistic license was used, but it's all based on truth.

Actually, their account of Charles' and Camilla's relationship really isn't 'based on truth'. They strongly imply that they were continuing to have an intimate relationship at the time of Charles' marriage to Diana, when at this time Camilla was simply an ex-girlfriend with a husband and children of her own.

Homewreckers and mistresses must be happy to see someone like that can be elevated to queen status though.

What a horribly misogynistic viewpoint. Camilla's husband cheated practically from the day they got married. Was he a 'homewrecker' too?

And are all women - but not men - to be defined because of an extramarital relationship they had decades ago? Unless they're Saint Diana, obviously?

When exactly are we 'reminded' of that?

We are constantly reminded of this when Harry and Meghan do anything at all. Especially when they wanted the half in and out (as done by royal cousins all the time). Every paper, panelist and even regular posters on this thread (bet you are one of them too), told us this.
But thanks for your next paragraph which shows the people who say this are hypocrites, because they do change all the time.

Camilla was simply an ex-girlfriend with a husband and children of her own.
Camilla was not just simply this. She was Charles lover, ever present. Her own husband was cheating, and Camilla turned to Charles for attention. Camilla herself may had been in love with her husband, but he had a roving eye, it was well known. They were already 8yrs married with the children.
Here is Diana talking about her presence from the start. The rest is on Netflix.

Of course Camilla's husband is a home-wrecker and so are other men, they have not been elevated to be Kings. It is not my viewpoint hat is misogynistic, it's the palace and society as has been demonstrated in. accepting that Charles will be King and other kings before him have got away with it.

Diana was stripped, so not sure why you include her.

Both Diana and Camilla were cheated on, so I don't blame them for having affairs too, but I think they both should have had affairs with single men.

We are constantly reminded of this when Harry and Meghan do anything at all. Especially when they wanted the half in and out (as done by royal cousins all the time). Every paper, panelist and even regular posters on this thread (bet you are one of them too), told us this.

I don't want to get dragged off topic here, but wanting 'half in half out', which basically meant trading off their royal titles in California, has nothing to do with 'modernisation' and no, none of Harry's cousins have a similar deal.

But that's for another discussion .

As for your 'bet' you seem to be quite angry and getting very personal about all this. How does it make the blindest bit of difference to you how Camilla is styled? She'll be queen whether or not she uses that title, just as she is now Princess of Wales.

Camilla was not just simply this. She was Charles lover, ever present.

No she was not. She had her own life and was not Charles' lover at the time he married Diana. Just because Diana said something, or because The Crown hinted at it, does not mean it is true.

Of course Camilla's husband is a home-wrecker and so are other men, they have not been elevated to be Kings.

Are you having a laugh? Pretty much every king in history has been unfaithful. If being a 'homewrecker' were an impediment to being a monarch, every monarchy in the world would have been abolished centuries ago.

Diana was stripped, so not sure why you include her.

Diana was 'stripped' of her HRH because she was no longer a member of the royal family, but she was still entitled to style herself Diana, Princess of Wales. Had she remained married to Charles, she would still have been queen despite all her affairs.

Both Diana and Camilla were cheated on, so I don't blame them for having affairs too

Really? You sound extremely judgemental about one of these women having affairs.

Camilla was not just simply this. She was Charles lover, ever present

She was only one of his lovers - The Crown has airbrushed out the other.

And of course Diana was so 'terrorised' that she told to her lawyer in 1995 (meeting, and a note in her handwriting) that Camilla was only a decoy for his real intention.

@IcedPurple I know the Royal Family want us to believe that Charles and Camilla were only friends while Charles tried to make his marriage work. There is plenty of Palace PR giving that viewpoint.
The Crown strongly implied that was not the case as Diana was clear that was not the case.

[quote Monopolyiscrap]@IcedPurple I know the Royal Family want us to believe that Charles and Camilla were only friends while Charles tried to make his marriage work. There is plenty of Palace PR giving that viewpoint.
The Crown strongly implied that was not the case as Diana was clear that was not the case.[/quote]
It's not 'Palace PR'. Many people who actually know the couple have said that they did not rekindle their physical relationship until years after Charles' marriage.

And I'm not sure you're aware of this, but 'The Crown' is fiction.

In any case, what does it matter? Is it your position that women are to be punished indefinitely for an affair they had decades ago?

I think having a man as the Head of the Church of England who had affairs while married and is now married to a mistress, is not okay.

The Crown is fictionalised and actually did not include many scandals. The Royal Family could have had a much rougher ride.