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?

The Crown is largely based on reality. And in some cases was a more flattering portrayal than the reality e.g. Lord Mountbatten.

yes, it ignores Mountbatten's paedophilia entirely - which the royal family must have covered up, since the FBI informant for it was a close friend of the Queen Mother

I thought it hinted subtlety at Mountbatten’s paedophilia without coming outright and saying anything that they could be sued for.

What paedophillia?

The amount of legislation the Queen has got out of because of her position is rarely mentioned, and when it is few seem to care

It's actually even worse than that, because those who don't care are often the same ones who insist the Queen "has no power". I've often remarked it's a strange position to take when HM interferes with what becomes law and what doesn't, but of course there's never any response

Since the thread's about Camilla though, if it's thought 160 or so legal get-outs are bad, I hate to think how many there'll be when she and Charles are "it"

This article outlines more

www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19731909.lord-darkness-disturbing-life-charless-favourite-uncle/

Charles bought Highgrove

The Duchy Of Cornwall bought Highgrove. Charles pays rent on it which is returned to him in the form of Duchy profits.

Out of one pocket and straight back into another.

a paranoia fed by the papers and specifically Martin Bashir

Diana was gagging to present her side of the story. She wasn't some gormless ingenue. She'd been manipulating the press and playing cat and mouse with them for years. IMO she'd have bitten Bashir and Panorama's hand off even without the doctored evidence in much the same way Andrew jumped at the chance to broadcast his 'truth'.

Diana was gagging to present her side of the story. She wasn't some gormless ingenue. She'd been manipulating the press and playing cat and mouse with them for years. IMO she'd have bitten Bashir and Panorama's hand off even without the doctored evidence in much the same way Andrew jumped at the chance to broadcast his 'truth'.

People forget that up to the point where their marriage totally broke down, Diana had been extremely discreet and extremely loyal to Charles and the RF. I lived through that era and although there were rumours about the marriage break up, very few people in the general public believed it, we naievely believed the official Buckingham Palace “story” that was put forward! There was no Internet and our only news sources were the evening news and newspapers.

Diana at that point was literally voiceless! And she was expected by the RF to just except what had been done to her and go quietly. Charles had (despicably) encouraged his cabal of friends to brief against her, suggesting she was mentally unstable etc and consequently she was legitimately worried about access to her dc post divorce.

Of course she wanted to tell her side and I think that was fair enough. It was genuinely shocking to the general public when it all came out too!

And if people are writing stories about you (often maliciously) in the papers to make money from you, every single day, it surely makes sense to try and take control of the narrative and fight back a bit. I think that is fair enough. She had very few people whom she could trust and of course Bashir played on that.

I think Diana was far more sinned against than the reverse. And consider the alternative for a moment. You are effectively saying that she should have proceeded to publicly support the narrative that everything was fine between Charles and herself and the rest of the RF, and she would have had to act out a lie every day, with her young children witnessing that lie and having to collude with it! Good for her for speaking up I say!

Charles had (despicably) encouraged his cabal of friends to brief against her, suggesting she was mentally unstable

I think this is more pertinent than the narrative that has (conveniently for Charles) grown to suggest Martin Bashir was Satan incarnate.

I lived through it too and I think he's a convenient scapegoat for both Charles and her nasty piece of work brother who let's not forget refused her a modest refuge on the estate she'd grown up on.

You are effectively saying that she should have proceeded to publicly support the narrative that everything was fine between Charles and herself and the rest of the RF, and she would have had to act out a lie every day, with her young children witnessing that lie and having to collude with it!

I haven't 'effectively' said anything of the sort. I think she used what she and the public considered to be a serious platform that would give her side the gravitas she craved.

This thread is certifiable. It’s like listening to flat earthers. Bonkers.

Do you have anything to add that isn't?

I’ve tried but no one here seems open to the idea that things in the media aren’t word for word what happened.

Remember that truth doesn’t sell newspapers and maybe have a look at the corrections and retraction section of The Sun/ The Mail and The Express once in a while.

oh, and also internet gossip is also not fact. Nor is an episode of The Crown. They even get basic facts wrong- the great smog, Prince Philip kneeling for the Queen, Queen’s response to Aberfan, Philips mother giving an interview to The Guardian, Princess Margaret trying to stop Charles and Diana’s wedding.

It is all heavily imagined. Like much of the press coverage. Arguing who is better or worse than who based on newspaper article and a TV drama is utterly mad.

Arguing who is better or worse than who based on newspaper article and a TV drama is utterly mad

There is no need to do that though Legrandsophie

I think there is enough information out there now about Diana from reasonably trustworthy sources such as her former private secretary, Patrick Jephson, or Rosa Monckton, not to need to follow the narrative of the Crown or any fictional accounts of her life.

And the underlying point of this thread is that a fundamental injustice was done to Diana when she was a young woman of twenty which the RF was happy to collude in. And they would have much preferred it if she had quietly accepted that Charles had a mistress, and her refusal to do that caused a huge problem. I don't think anyone can deny those basic facts however they are dressed up.

And yet now Camilla feels it is appropriate to write publicly about the erosion of "family values". I don't think it is "bonkers" to highlight hypocrisy!

I haven't 'effectively' said anything of the sort. I think she used what she and the public considered to be a serious platform that would give her side the gravitas she craved

And yet you seem to be criticising her for doing that CathyorClaire? I believe she had a fundamental right to defend her own position. And she was hoodwinked by a corrupt journalist who went as far as forging documents to obtain an interview. And somehow that's Diana's fault?

I totally agree with you @Limecoconutice especially your post of 18.46.

There was no social media, Diana had no voice but to come out and give an interview, and that's what she did.
Martin Bashir is just a convenient scapegoat. Yes he behaved shamefully but that's what journos do to get a scoop.

She never regretted doing that interview, she was able to say it like it was for the first time. Of course the RF hated it and they had to besmirch her to make their part seem better but you can't polish a turd.

Diana was treated awfully by them and I have no doubt that's what fuels Harry's rsentment and anger about the institution

You don't know that.

Different times

I’ve said before & I’ll say again.

I come from a long line of arranged marriages. My Mum was younger than Diana. Most of my female cousins ranged from 16-23.

It’s the duty of the family to represent their child’s interest, be it compatibility, finance whatever. My parents ensured that I knew what I was going into. They weren’t concerned with Dh that was for his parents& extended family.

Luckily for us we fell in love quite quickly I think due to the fact that our parents had done their homework. We were also older than the norm. MIL didn’t want another situation like BIL. They are perfectly happy now but as sil says it wasn’t love.

There is no way that the Spencers didn’t know the score. It was for them to protect Diana not the RF. I suspect Diana knew as well, it was ingrained in us from a young age. The men had girlfriends the women kept home & a roof over their heads.

Luckily that way is dying out for my dcs generation but it’s still that way for some.

I should add that SIL says she thought it was lovely the time but realised when she was older that it obviously couldn’t be as they had only met a handful of times & with chaperones.

Sorry, going a little off topic here but I remember watching a documentary about another woman that Charles had a long running affair with. Camilla apparently brought in Diana to get Charles away from this original woman who eventually died in tragic circumstances.
Cannot remember her name. The program was years ago.

Charles had (despicably) encouraged his cabal of friends to brief against her, suggesting she was mentally unstable

Yes. Nicholas Soames. The fat pig. Didn’t beat around the bush when it came to her mental health.

Kanga.

Well said.

And yet you seem to be criticising her for doing that CathyorClaire? I believe she had a fundamental right to defend her own position. And she was hoodwinked by a corrupt journalist who went as far as forging documents to obtain an interview. And somehow that's Diana's fault?

You seem to be reading things that aren't there.

I think she jumped at the chance to do an interview on a prestigious platform, she knew what she was doing and that we only have her hideous brother's word that the doctored evidence was the last straw. The same hideous brother who has conveniently had his own bad behaviour overshadowed by that of a corrupt hack.

I'm not criticising her. I love the chance to sit gawping at any royal shit show interview. I'm hoping for many more but sadly even the dim-witted royals seem finally to be wising up to the pitfalls.

I have seen that same narrative/lies emerging again suggesting Diana was mentally unstable and it was this that led to the marriage break up.
Harder to sustain these lies though while the Royal Family do work around mental health.