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?

@smilesy affairs are almost impossible to prove as fact unless you find them having sex. But the signs are often pretty obvious.

Yes the jewellery made for Camilla that Diana accidentally found was a fact portrayed in the Crown.

The Gladys and Fred bracelet. And the mystery woman who visited the royal train a short time before the wedding. Thr press speculated it was Diana. Now very obvious who it was.

Hugo Vickers? Really? He is among the top people to push royal familyl PR.

@AuntieStella

I will believe Diana who was there, and living that life. Thank you very much

So you'll believe that she saw Camilla as only a decoy - as she left evidence to that effect with her lawyer

Could you tell more on this story?

As I have something in mind of why Diana would say this, but it may be different to what you say.

What was Camilla a decoy for?

“@smilesy affairs are almost impossible to prove as fact unless you find them having sex. But the signs are often pretty obvious.”

Yes I am quite capable of spotting the signs of an affair thank you having done so successfully during my first marriage. What I was saying along with others is that things are being presented as “facts” when they may or may not be such things. There is no “actual” proof. As an aside, Diana herself may have been moving on from what was an unhappy marriage when she met her untimely death. I moved on from what, in hindsight, was becoming an unhappy marriage and have remained friends with my exDH despite his affair. I realised that it was the relationship we had that was not right for both of us. Who knows if Diana was not coming to this conclusion and choosing not to live in the past.

You don't need to look to The Crown for the bracelet story when .

I will believe Diana who was there, and living that life. Thank you very much.

You can believe who you like, but Diana was an unreliable witness and 'The Crown' is fiction.

In any case, as I've already asked you, what really does it matter?

We know that Charles and Camilla cheated, as did both of their spouses (multiple times) and as was pretty much the norm among the upper classes of their generation. That doesn't make it OK, obviously, but if you were going to exclude adulterers from being monarchs or consorts, you'd have to exclude most of them.

So the fact that Camilla was, to use your expression, a 'homewrecker' isn't a reason for her not to be queen, just as it would not have been a reason for Diana not to be queen had she remained married to Charles.

@smilesy

Camilla was widely reported in the gossip column at the time to be having an affair with Charles.

Err gossip is just that. It’s not fact. So by implication, “The Crown” is also not dealing in facts 🤷‍♀️ But the point still is that the world and public opinion have moved on.

I'll be very interested to see what all those Diana fans touting The Crown as historical fact will have to say once the 5th season airs.

Because I have a funny feeling that it will not be as flattering to the Sainted Diana as the previous two seasons have been.

Can people go and listen to Diana in her own words please. She was talking about Camilla. Stop trying to rewrite history.

What Diana said when being recorded in itself involved a degree of rewriting of history.

@Viviennemary

The Gladys and Fred bracelet. And the mystery woman who visited the royal train a short time before the wedding. Thr press speculated it was Diana. Now very obvious who it was.

Diana was vehement it was not her.

@IcedPurple No one except those who slag off Diana thinks she was a Saint. I know her faults and expect to see them portrayed.

@IcedPurple who is Diana an unreliable witness but Charles is a reliable witness?

Those of us who were adults while all of this was happening know for a fact that the monarchy expected Diana to maintain the fiction in public that her marriage to Charles was happy and repeatedly endorse a lie. They were both having affairs and Diana was expected to shut up about it. Imagine how confusing that must have been for William and Harry? And when Diana did speak up, she was discredited, stripped of her HRH, and pushed out.

People forget so easily that up to the point of publishing "Her true story" Diana had been very loyal and discreet, and quite a large portion of the general public, had dismissed the many rumours circulating in the press about the affairs as fictitious trouble-making. It's hard to imagine now in a world with the internet and sm but back then there was significantly less information and news of this sort to explore. "I'm sure it's all nonsense" we said. Imagine our surprise when it not only turned out to be true, but far worse than we had imagined!

It's not the affairs, but the hypocrisy and duplicitousness of it all that sticks in my throat tbh. From "the establishment" that style themselves as somehow examples of loyalty and honour! Sorry but apart from the charity work, there is very little "honourable" about it. Particularly how a nineteen year old was sucked up and spat out to provide an heir and a spare.

[quote Monopolyiscrap]@IcedPurple who is Diana an unreliable witness but Charles is a reliable witness?[/quote]
Where did I say Charles was a reliable witness?

So you think neither Diana or Charles are reliable witnesses?

The Crown does not portray Diana in an innocent light. They have Anne saying, there was a revolving door of men for Diana (though they do not go into details about these men).
Diana herself admitted her affairs, who she was emotionally involved with, and who she persuaded (a faux pas in those days for a royal woman to chase after a man, especially a married one). No one thinks she is an angel. But we have to admit, she started these affairs due to Camilla and Charles.

@Monopolyiscrap

So you think neither Diana or Charles are reliable witnesses?

Correct.

@Cabriolelegs99

I have a low opinion of Camilla.
I see her as having a bitchy character. From mocking Diana (making out to be her friend) to her mocking Meghan for holding her bump.

I always remember Camilla and Charles laughing in church at the pastor at Harry and Meghans wedding. That was just nasty.

I don't think she mocked Meghan, did she?

Laughing at the bishop (he's not a pastor, he's the American equivalent of the AoC) was low but Camilla wasn't the only one. His sermon wasn't for everyone but I assumed the royals would know how to keep a poker face.

Láughing at the sermon was véry low.
I have been to unusual religious weddings and thought wtf, but I save my reactions for when I am home with DP. Not in the church. You show respect. It is basic manners.

I have a low opinion of Camilla.
I see her as having a bitchy character

Maybe she just has a slightly different sense of humour to you. I wouldn’t say that would necessarily make her “bitchy”. As for laughing in church, we have all been in situations where we have got the giggles, even when we know it is not appropriate.
Have you read about any of her work with charities that work with victims of domestic abuse? She has a lot of time and empathy for those people.

@smilesy please don't say everyone when it is not true. I haven't done this since I was a teenager.

But we have to admit, she started these affairs due to Camilla and Charles.

Camilla's first husband was notorious among the upper classes for shagging around, and was supposedly the inspiration for Rupert Campbell Black, the promiscuous horsey type from the Jilly Cooper novels. He'd been cheating on Camilla since their wedding day, if not before.

So by your logic, Camilla only started her affair with Charles because of her husband's serial infidelity.