Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
The royal family
Original poster

Harry and Camilla and Charles and Andrew: Some Questions

187 replies

MrsMaxDeWinter · 15/10/2022 01:02

I am reading that Charles will not invite Harry to the coronation if he criticises Camilla in his upcoming memoir.

There is also commentary that Harry's memoir will be damaging to the Royal Family. Most of the commentary is around fear of what he will say about Camilla.

I am struggling to understand what Harry could say that is more damaging about Charles and Camilla than we already know. The admitted adultery, the divorce, the whole ghastly Tampongate leaks happened, and they are now King and Queen.

Andrew paid out millions to put out fire on a sex scandal involving a minor and Epstein.

And recently, a biography of Camilla by Angela Levin has, I am informed, a whole chapter that seems gratuitous as it is extremely critical of Harry. Angela Levin has suggested that friends of Camilla cooperated with her on the book with her knowledge.

So why is Harry allowed to be criticised in a book about Camilla that appears to have her blessing, but he is not allowed to be critical of Camilla in his own book?

Step parenting relationships are inherently fraught, as we see here all the time. it can't have been easy for a 12-year-old boy who lost his mother to grow up learning that his father was involved to another woman. He will have heard about his mother's own affairs but it is hard to judge someone who died, and was his mother.

Of course, he may have overcome his resentment of his stepmother by now, but why is he not allowed to talk about what he was feeling then, and perhaps his struggle to accept the situation?

And why is what Harry may say about Camilla a bigger thing, and more damaging, than what Andrew did?

OP posts:
Nishky32 · 15/10/2022 09:17

And suddenly in this thread Tom Bower is someone we should believe…. Amazing mental gymnastics

Ashadeofgreen55 · 15/10/2022 09:24

Roussette · 15/10/2022 03:29

Levin's modus operandi is to tweet slurs about M&H followed by a link to her book
Yuk

I agree with you Roussette as I so often do on these RF threads.

In addition to Levin’s book, has no one noticed the numerous puff pieces in the press about Camilla of late? The carefully managed tv appearances? They are all obviously part of some managed PR campaign.

And one of the known tactics of PR companies, when boosting their client’s profile, is to diminish the credibility of others , in this case H&M. The same thing happened before with Diana.

HaveYouSeenNancy · 15/10/2022 09:33

Op have you read the links you've posted? They don't support your post.

queenofarles · 15/10/2022 09:36

I am reading that Charles will not invite Harry to the coronation if he criticises Camilla in his upcoming memoir. where ?

HaveYouSeenNancy · 15/10/2022 09:40

This thread appears to be based on supposition, followed by misunderstanding of the supposition. Odd.

queenofarles · 15/10/2022 09:50

I am struggling to understand what Harry could say that is more damaging about Charles and Camilla than we already know. The admitted adultery, the divorce, the whole ghastly Tampongate leaks happened, and they are now King and Queen. no one wants to open this can of worms again, Both C&D behaved badly, you can’t trash one parent and leave out the other.

derxa · 15/10/2022 10:06

queenofarles · 15/10/2022 09:36

I am reading that Charles will not invite Harry to the coronation if he criticises Camilla in his upcoming memoir. where ?

Exactly. Where?

EchoPark · 15/10/2022 11:15

So why is Harry allowed to be criticised in a book about Camilla that appears to have her blessing, but he is not allowed to be critical of Camilla in his own book?

Of course he's allowed. He's apparently doing it, isn't he?

Equating public criticism of someone as to them 'not being allowed' is a petulant and idiotic argument.

jeffgoldblum · 15/10/2022 12:28

Sorry , what were the questions?

Original poster
MrsMaxDeWinter · 15/10/2022 15:51

MarshaMelrose · 15/10/2022 08:50

I'm not sure how anyone can comment on the content of a book when they've not actually read it. Of course, it's possible to read excerpts, I guess. Have excerpts been published? I read that Times review you attached. It mentions no chapter full of gratuitously nasty things about Harry. Just a story it terms 'cute' about a mock "full monty" show put on by William and Harry.

I've read lot of stuff on MN that, when I read the source text, wasn't anything like what was said. You yourself said that Larcombe was implying that the whole of Africa walked around barefoot and sat round campfires when it was clear in the article quoted that he as referring to pictures of Harry in which he was walking around barefoot and sitting round campfires!

Excerpts have been published in the Telegraph, yes.

I am quoting the author herself who has said, in the links above, with video embedded, that she wrote the book in part to correct the "nasty things" Harry said about Camilla.

Those are not my words, but hers.

Re the Tom Bower comment above: he is taken as an authority here but in my view, his sources are, as he said himself, mainly people who do like Meghan. He also got a lot of facts wrong, basic things like who was on the Vogue cover.

So no, I don't believe Camilla said what he says she said, nor do I believe that the Queen, deep in grief exclaimed "Thank goodness Meghan is not here" something hat "palace sources have denied.

If you believe everything TB says, Meghan stealing shoes etc, then you have to believe what he says about Camila and the Queen, which makes the latter sound petty, and the former the kind of person who cracks jokes about an unborn child based on its genetics. I don't believe they are, so I don't believe Tom Bower.

The woman Andrew allegedly had sex with was not a minor - she was over the age of consent.

Virginia Giufre was a minor in the sense that she was below the age of consent in te US, which had jurisdiction over both the civil and criminal matters surrounding this involved in the Epstein case. Maxwell was convicted of being party to Epstein's offences. Andrew was accused, refused to cooperate with the criminal investigation despite pledging to do so in his disastrous interview, was sued and settled out of court.

It's been said by Harry that it wasn't Camilla who commented on skin colour.

This is not correct. Harry asked Oprah to make it clear that it was not the Queen or Prince Philip who made the comment. Oprah did so in an interview with Gayle King. Harry has never said it was not Camilla.

Diana committed adultery before Charles did so the marriage was over by the time he took up with Camilla.

I said above that to Harry as a boy, recently bereaved, his mother committing adultery would likely be less of a cause of resentment in the break up of the marriage, especially after she died, than the resentment caused by his father's mistress who then becomes his stepmother.

On step parenting threads, posters ask all the time: were you the OW?

To a child, having a single person to heap blame upon is easier than navigating the complexity of the marriage of two people he loves, namely his parents.

I'm not sure how anyone can comment on the content of a book when they've not actually read it. Of course, it's possible to read excerpts, I guess. Have excerpts been published?

It is possible to read excerpts yes, it was serialised in the Telegraph. I have not read the chapter on Harry, but I am quoting the author herself who said Harry said "nasty things" and hat was one of her reasons for writing.

OP posts:
Original poster
MrsMaxDeWinter · 15/10/2022 15:55

jeffgoldblum · 15/10/2022 12:28

Sorry , what were the questions?

You asked me not to tag you in threads, and I promised not to do so, but as you have asked a direct question, it is only polite that I reply.

The questions are clear from my OP. Indeed, they have been answered from different points of view by posters here.

Thank you.

OP posts:
EchoPark · 15/10/2022 16:02

On step parenting threads, posters ask all the time: were you the OW?

No, they do not. Historically maybe but not now.

Pinkcadillac · 15/10/2022 16:02

We cannot really comment on Harry's opinions on Camilla until his book comes out.

We cannot really comment on Harry not being invited to the coronation until the thing happens.

Anything Levin writes, I'd take with a pinch of salt.

jeffgoldblum · 15/10/2022 16:07

Mrs , I've never asked you personally not to tag me , that was another poster, on another thread , which I will not name!
Surprised to hear you think it was you?

Original poster
MrsMaxDeWinter · 15/10/2022 16:10

EchoPark · 15/10/2022 16:02

On step parenting threads, posters ask all the time: were you the OW?

No, they do not. Historically maybe but not now.

I frequent those threads. That question arises so frequently that posters often start threads with: just to be clear I was not the OW. Feel free to have a browse.

We cannot really comment on Harry's opinions on Camilla until his book comes out.

We cannot really comment on Harry not being invited to the coronation until the thing happens.

An entire reasonable proposition @Pinkcadillac were it not for the copious threads commenting on stuff that has not even happened with M and H yet. Their divorce, how they will live without money, whether they will come back, and what they have to do to come back - we even had posts recently speculating on Harry at 50!

So I would accept this reasonable view if there was not such a glaring double standard.

OP posts:
Original poster
MrsMaxDeWinter · 15/10/2022 16:12

jeffgoldblum · 15/10/2022 16:07

Mrs , I've never asked you personally not to tag me , that was another poster, on another thread , which I will not name!
Surprised to hear you think it was you?

I am pretty sure it was me, but I could be mistaken, in that case, we are good. Here's a tag @jeffgoldblum 😁

OP posts:
jeffgoldblum · 15/10/2022 16:14

@MrsMaxDeWinter , no worries, I don't normally care about tagging as I don't receive notifications! , it was only an issue with two rather unpleasant posters both @ me in a bullying fashion continually!

inheritanceshiteagain · 15/10/2022 16:26

Pixiedust1234 · 15/10/2022 01:24

It would be wonderful to have links you know. To back up these claims. Including the one asking about archies colour.

Ditto

inheritanceshiteagain · 15/10/2022 16:29

Camilla should write nothing unless it is good and Harry should dump the book. Dirty washing and all that

Iwantmyoldnameback · 15/10/2022 17:14

CadburyPurple · 15/10/2022 09:11

You make many false assumptions in your post.

The woman Andrew allegedly had sex with was not a minor - she was over the age of consent.

It's been said by Harry that it wasn't Camilla who commented on skin colour.

Diana committed adultery before Charles did so the marriage was over by the time he took up with Camilla.

If you are going to pose questions try to get the facts right first, otherwise you look a bit ignorant.

I agree we should get facts straight wherever possible so let's remember the girl accusing Andrew was trafficked so her age was irrelevant, and Diana may or may not have had the first sexual affair but Camilla was always around so Charles was certainly emotionally unfaithful first.

Roussette · 15/10/2022 17:22

Thank you for pointing out about the age of consent and trafficked individuals. Again and again on Andrew threads posters say..but she was over the age of consent as a way of making Andrew's actions OK. It really really annoys me. Age is irrelevant if you are a young vulnerable trafficked girl.

Roussette · 15/10/2022 17:47

Oh. ...and. no. Charles did not 'take up' with Camilla only when the marriage was over. He was emotionally involved with her before and during the marriage. Remember the cufflinks Camilla gave him and Diana found on their honeymoon?
Why does he get a pass for this?
Imagine a thread on here with this sort of behaviour...

MaMisled · 15/10/2022 17:56

I can't understand the horror surrounding comments on unborn Archies skin colour? If any of my DC have a child with a someone with a darker or lighter skin colour than theirs, as a family we'd definitely speculate on the tone of the baby's skin. As we would hair colour, height and eye colour. Am I missing something?

marcopront · 15/10/2022 18:10

MaMisled · 15/10/2022 17:56

I can't understand the horror surrounding comments on unborn Archies skin colour? If any of my DC have a child with a someone with a darker or lighter skin colour than theirs, as a family we'd definitely speculate on the tone of the baby's skin. As we would hair colour, height and eye colour. Am I missing something?

As the mother of a mixed race child, I agree with you.
My family did discuss my daughter's potential skin colour before she was born. I have also talked about it with friends who have mixed race children.
My daughter and I also discuss the hair of other mixed race students at school.

Ashadeofgreen55 · 15/10/2022 18:40

Both C&D behaved badly, you can’t trash one parent and leave out the other

Yes ultimately they both behaved very badly but at the outset ...marrying a twenty year old year old when you are in love with someone else is pretty poor behaviour whatever your status in life. And deceiving your fiancé then wife about the state of your relationship, effectively using her as a breeding vessel, and expecting her and your dc to collude with that lie in public.... is pretty low imho. And it was pretty low of his mistress to collude in it too! If she had any decency, she would have distanced herself, especially once young dc are involved.

I don't understand how people can be so forgiving tbh. We're not talking about ordinary infidelity here, we are talking about a huge injustice. About a young woman who was acting in good faith not being in on a secret that everyone else knew about. It's really cruel. And everyone says "oh he was under such pressure to marry" well I've no doubt he was but he was a 32 year old man, at the heart of the establishment, with a lot of power, while Diana had very little. The power imbalance between them was huge. And when she protested they tried to silence her (unsuccessfully) then ostracised her and then called her mad! It's worthy of a Victorian novel tbh.