AIBU to think they are over-egging the pudding a bit with Camilla's latest "rehabilitation"?

[Limecoconutice]

I know this isn't AiBU but I am interested in the view of both royalists and republicans. (I am somewhere in the middle, veering towards republicanism.)

Fair enough the Queen declaring officially that Camilla will be Queen when Charles inherits the throne. I reluctantly concede that she has proved herself, doing the job of royal consort reasonably well, with well chosen causes, and I don't envy her having to take on the role of Queen consort at an age when most people are winding down and enjoying life a bit. It's a big commitment. Ditto the induction in to the Order of the Garter. I don't pretend to understand the significance of that but it is obviously meaningful to the RF.

But this latest video of her saying her parents taught her to be "considerate of others" is kind of ignoring the elephant in the room? Yes it was a long time ago, yes both Charles and Diana came from dysfunctional backgrounds and had unreasonable outside pressures put upon them, and yes Diana had affairs too, but I still think it takes a particularly hard sort of person to pursue an extra marital relationship so relentlessly when there are young children involved? Not very "considerate" in my view! Any decent or honourable person would have stepped back, moved abroad, absented themselves and she did none of those things. She bought a house close to Highgrove fhs! And it's fairly apparent that the ripple effect of the devastation caused is still being felt today (Harry etc) despite everyone's best efforts to make it appear as if it's been smoothed over!

Call me old-fashioned, but my view is that you can have all the beauty treatments and cosmetic dentistry and procedures you like in New York, and all the couture outfits and hats made for you in London, and Elizabeth II's approval, and the Order of the Garter bestowed upon you, but that doesn't make you an honourable person! But maybe my mistake is thinking that any of the RF should be more honourable than the average person? But I kind of think that to do the job well, you have to be nowadays! Maybe before press intrusion and mobile phone cameras and TV news, you could play the role of King or Queen and be a different person in your private life, but nowadays , with such an intense spotlight on you, you have to be the real article! I am just not convinced that Camilla, or Charles for that matter (who doesn't get to shake off responsibility for his role in the Diana debacle either) quite cut it!

Anyone else (who can be bothered to care) feel the same way?

Adding she has been well liked generally for a while, but at the beginning it was very different

I am almost certain that the establishment never expected the relationship to end. Charles would have been told that he was perfectly reasonable to continue, that all heirs to the throne have mistresses, but need a "suitable" wife.

Diana's family will have known this too. They should never have allowed the marriage, but I daresay the lure of being part of the RF was too strong.

I've always felt that the reason Diana's brother has been so outspoken about it is that he knows his family sent her to it knowingly and deliberately.

@50mg I have always found it strange that Diana's family are criticised for not protecting her but there is no criticism of Charles family for allowing a marriage to go ahead that took advantage of a vulnerable teenager.
It is the same idea that sees people criticising families of girls in Rotherham and other places for not protecting their girls from abusers.

Funny how on another thread people were adamant that Harry could change-l his character but Camilla and Charles apparently can’t. Double standards

I don't think Diana's family, who will have known exactly how aristocratic marriages worked, can be compared to the families of the vulnerable girls in Rotherham.

@50mg But Dianas family should have seen that a marriage between a shy 19-year-old and a 32-year-old might be problematic, but Charles's family should not?
In my view nobody should have been encouraging this marriage. Diana was used as a brood mare, nothing more/

Rehabilitation?!
is she a witch now for having sex out of wedlock? Or for having an affair?

FFS

charles had an affair and wasn’t allowed to marry the woman he wanted.

diana had multiple affairs with married men. So much so there are rumours police had to warn her off because she was harassing the wives.

it was tragic what happened to her, she was no saint, neither was Charles and they should never have been pushed to marry.

@Damnautocorrect Camilla did not want to marry Charles at that point.

Diana broke Julia Carling's marriage up and caused damage in Oliver Hoare's. I much prefer Camilla

Both Diana, Charles and Camilla had affairs. On both sides, those affairs broke up marriages.
But Diana did not try and befriend the wives of any men she had affairs with. Camilla did try and befriend Diana while having an affair with Charles. That is an awful level of deviousness.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/princess-diana-taunted-lover-oliver-13229537.amp

5 seconds google brought this one up. She didn’t befriend them. Just harass them.

neither were saints in that marriage and they never should have got married to each other.

but “rehabilitation” is it the 1800’s?!

I really like Camilla - she seems steady, good fun and decent. She is totally suited to Charles and they seem v happy. I couldn’t care less that they were having an affair - it’s none of my business & tbh time has shown that she was the right partner for him.

God knows how anyone can say she's 'good fun' without knowing her. It's strange.

@damn the taunting is tabloid speak.
He finished with Diana and she kept phoning him afterwards.

I have said repeatedly that I think people's characters do not really change and I think Camilla has shown herself to be very manipulative.

@Roussette I suspect she would look down her nose at most of these people saying she would be fun to have a drink with. She is an aristocrat who mixes very much with other aristocrats.

I’ve absolutely no wish at all to have a drink with Camilla. I do still think she’d be a good laugh on a night out (with her friends) though.

Does it bother me she wouldn’t wish to have a drink with me? No. I’m very fussy about the company I keep and wouldn’t mix with anyone who has cheated.

Adultery seems really common in the royals/upper classes,mainly men though a few women, I suppose all the way back from Henry VIII's scandals. Ironically, Camilla, Diana and Fergie are all descended from at least one royal mistress. Camilla's great-grandmother Alice Keppel was one of Edward VII's many mistresses, Philip and Elizabeth are both rumoured to have cheated (I doubt Elizabeth but I can believe Philip maybe once), then Charles, Diana, Camilla, Fergie, Anne, Camilla's husband Andrew, were all having affairs. Then there is the William affair rumour, and the rumour that Diana's real father was a Goldsmith. The rumours can't all be true, but some may be. George V and George VI seem to be honourable exceptions, presumably because they each married people they were deeply in love with.

I was away for work yesterday so just catching up with latest posts now, which make interesting reading, thank you.

Legrandsophie
*But then I’m not that vindictive. Both Charles and Camilla are in their 70s. Diana is dead. Nothing will change the past, especially not slagging off a woman you never met online"

I am not in the habit of "slagging off" anyone on line thanks. This thread is about Camilla's suitability to take on a very key public role. After all the monarchy receives £86.3 million from us annually - that is the total taxpayer-funded sovereign grant - a figure which I think entitles every British citizen to at least express an opinion!

And why is it "common sense" not to question the status quo and be blindly accepting of stories published in the press designed to make Camilla seem sympathetic?

i do have sympathy for the view expressed here by some pps that life moves on, in general people become better, more nuanced, individuals as they age. But this is quite an important public role that Camilla is taking on.

I am totally with AntelopeValley on this. It's not about judging people in a moral sense for having extra marital affairs. It's what she did beyond that to manipulate and supposedly "befriend" a very young girl who, at the time, was pretty clueless! I also think that she must have been a pretty ruthless person to pursue the relationship with Charles (and he with her) in the face of that young family. Harry was very young indeed while this was all happening. I also agree that a leopard rarely changes its spots!

By all accounts, Camilla was pretty impoverished after her divorce and now she is poised to become one of the richest women in the country. Call me cynical, but I think it is pretty naive of people to assume that it was just " true love"that she was pursuing so ruthlessly.

I just can't imagine how it will all pan out when he becomes Monarch?

They're in their 70s, he will never ever give up Highgrove and has also said a year or two ago, that he would be working from there when he could when he is King. She spends a lot of time in her massive house and estate in Wiltshire, seperate from him, although it's only 15 mins away.

How on earth will the two of them cope with London living?

Wasn't there a documentary Charles tried to ban that was about the very expensive spin doctor he hired to turn around public opinion on Camilla in order to smooth the path to them marrying? I think it was called Reinventing the Royals and may be available on YouTube.

Either way it worked as she's now seen as some sort of national treasure!

befriend" a very young girl
wasn't Diana about 19 when she got engaged(off to google) so hardly a "very" young girl.

just googled she was 20 so an adult.

I can't stand either Charles or Camilla, there seems to be a HUGE push on positive PR about her.

Everyone you open a newspaper there's an article how wonderful she is. All buttering the public up for when she becomes Queen Consort or whatever it is she will be.

I'm definitely not royalist and think when Charles becomes King it will be the beginning of the end of the monarchy. Awful people.

Although i do like William and Kate, and have a lot of respect for our Queen. Not that anyone in the world cares what I think :)

She was 19 when she got engaged. Nobody said she was a child. But she was a vulnerable teenager.
Charles was 33 when they got engaged with lots of girlfriends in his past.
Diana even had to submit to a virginity test carried out by a Dr.
The idea was she had to be a virgin. So it meant Charles pragmatically could only marry a very young and inexperienced woman, probably a teenager.

@antelopevalley the op did in the last post. they called her a very young girl. 19/20 is hardly a very young girl. a young woman yes.

I have read so many comments on MN where mums absolutely do see their 19 year olds as very young and not quite adults yet.