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?

Life is complex as are people and relationships. People aren't either good or bad... honourable or dishonourable. People who are fundamentally decent can still do shitty things...and vice versa.

I suspect William and Kate are the first generation who have enough freedom in who they marry to actually have a chance of a healthy marriage.

I do wonder though if Kate had had a "past" that was plastered all over the media if the marriage would have been allowed?

@diddl It is a shame then that they do not appear to have this.

The royals are and always have been at it like bunnies.

I think people are extraordinarily naive about the reality of that world. I doubt they've changed much from the days of arranged marriages and royal mistresses and shit like that. They just hide it better.

Kate certainly had boyfriends before William. But it seems like she had the good sense to choose people who didn't blab.

@Comedycook I agree with you - I certainly did things when I was young, that make me feel ashamed now. I don't think I'm a bad person though - just a bit of a mixture, like most of us.

Either they didn't blab or they were "convinced" not to blab! I've not heard anything from Fergie's or Sophie's exes, and though Meghan's family are dreadful her ex-husband has kept quiet.

She did have boyfriends but like the friends she has now she obviously meant enough to them that they guard her privacy and their relationship with her very well. It says a lot about her.

Most people would not blab if they can't be tempted by the amount of money the press would offer.

Again, I don't think you are quite appreciating though how "voiceless" Diana was at the time CathyorClaire. Nowadays the royals have tame journalists and they can put across their view via "sources close to them" , through "friends of" or via PR firms etc... . Back then all of that was in the dark ages ..and Diana did not have a means of getting her side of things out there...as a result the majority of us in the general public (who believed what we read in the papers - naieve though that seems nowadays!) thought all of the rumours circling about the royal marriage were ludicrous, because what Buckingham Palace said was respected and not challenged, when in fact the truth turned out to be worse than fiction!

Diana, by speaking out, changed the order of things. She exposed the BP briefings as utter hogwash! And yes she was keen to do the interview but that doesn't mean she would rather not have been in the position which led her to speaking out in the first place. And imho it is entirely understandable to want to speak out when one of the most powerful men in the country, and his friends, are briefing against you.

I am aware of life's complexities Comedycook again, this isn't about judging a couple for their infidelity towards their respective partners. It's about far more than that: the manipulation of a third party sustained over a long period of time. In the eyes of Charles and Camilla: Diana was collateral damage. There was a huge injustice done to her.

I agree with you IncompleteSenten the difference now is that it is a lot harder to portray one side of a person and character to the press and the public, while leading an entirely different life behind closed doors.

As AntelopeValley points out with their reference to mh, people won't stand for hypocrisy as they once did. You only have to look at the public's response to William travelling long distances to conservation forums by aeroplane.

Interesting point about Kate's history etc. I think it does speak well of her that none of her former bfs have felt the need to blab. Not that anyone would care much now if a royall bride had a history surely? Talk about one rule for men and another for women!

No one would care if she had had a past but I think the public would care say if Kate and William's marriage was threatened by infidelity and it was somehow covered up and that was then discovered. The monarchy do need public support in order to survive. And the public don't like deception!

Diana did not have a means of getting her side of things out there

And yet she'd managed to collaborate with Andrew Morton and his explosive revelations three years earlier...

Diana had her mouthpieces. She would give news stories to favoured journalists all the time.

Diana could get her story out but she was hounded by the media in a way we don’t have anymore

Usually Kate will do a scheduled press release / event rather than paparazzi following her down the street and mobbing as they did Diana

I don’t know the mechanism for that change but I assume some kind of agreement - not that up on it though so might be other

"because what Buckingham Palace said was respected and not challenged, when in fact the truth turned out to be worse than fiction!"

Just reposting this part of the comment above by Limecoconutice. What we found out later about Diana and Charles was far worse than any rumours circulating at the time.
And with some members of the Royal Family, there are still a lot of terrible rumours circulating that even though they have been in mainstream newspapers, do not seem to be widely known about e.g. Lord Mountbatten and paedophilia.
The Royal Family still manage to keep a lot out of the mainstream press in Britain, but rumours and photos circulate on social media. The Royal Family can no longer totally control the narrative as they once did.

I think once the Queen dies, it could be much more a free for all with the press. The Royal Family have traditionally operated through the use of injunctions, plus a pro quo pro where they offer the press juicy stories in exchange for not publishing stories about key members of the Royal Family. But with Harry and Meghan gone, the Royal Family will run out of alternative juicy stories to offer the press.
The Cambridges have had more about the children in the press to try and keep the press happy. And I think that has worked to a certain extent. Debates about what George wears or whether Charlotte is "cheeky" seem to be enough to fill the column inches. But I do wonder if it will be enough?

The press could not get enough of Diana because she sold a lot of newspapers and magazines. There is simply not the same public interest in any other members of the Royal family, except Harry and Meghan - although to a lesser degree than Diana.

Richard Kay was a friend of Diana's, and was certainly able to act as her mouthpiece.

Yes she did. But that was very much an original move on her part! (Unlike nowadays when everything is leaked.) She had been quite loyal and discreet up to that point. The revelations in the book came as quite a shock to the man in the street (unlike now where we have too much royal news if anything!).

ajandjjmum
Richard Kay was a friend of Diana's, and was certainly able to act as her mouthpiece

I think that was only latterly though?

Interesting point about Kate's history etc. I think it does speak well of her that none of her former bfs have felt the need to blab. Not that anyone would care much now if a royall bride had a history surely? Talk about one rule for men and another for women!

I agree that a lot of people wouldn't care & yet the RF & their advisors(?) stick to these (IMO) ridiculous ideas & constrain themselves more than necessary.

I guess by the time Charles married at lot of women who weren't too far off his age were married already.

But it was the 80s-his having to marry a virgin(why?) was likely to mean that she would be a lot younger than him.

Wasn't there some hoo ha surrounding Fergie as she has (shock/horror) lived with someone?

I'm sure I read somewhere that Philip encouraged Edward & Sophie to live together first.

Wasn't there some hoo ha surrounding Fergie as she has (shock/horror) lived with someone?

Yep. Paddy McNally.

Entirely ironic that Andrew was discouraged from continuing his relationship with the subsequently very discreet Koo Stark (extra ironically on the grounds of her film appearance as a seventeen year old pursued by middle aged men and women) in favour of the flamboyant, free spending, debt accumulating, connection selling Fergie.

Catherine and William met when they were young so Catherine did not have many boyfriends before William. This article says there were four, and one of those was when she was at school and one was a very brief relationship.

www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/14801510/kate-middleton-ex-boyfriends-first-love-hockey-player-millionaire-hunk/

YY about Koo Stark CathyorClaire , esp considering the circs Andrew has ended up in! She failing to prove she was good enough for him (in the eyes of the palace). Oh the irony!