Why is the Queen commenting on the Roald Dahl controversy?

[OutofEverything]

I thought the Royal Family were supposed to be uncontroversial and unpolitical, so why is the Queen getting involved in this? It is nothing to do with her, she did not have to say anything?

Or have the rules changed and they are now going to be more controversial and political?

So what do you mean then? Charles has an official role as Head of State, and his wife does too. By not marrying her and leaving her as some sort of clandestine mistress, it would be almost as though he were ashamed of her and their relationship.

As for the past hurt, that's as you say, the past. What difference does 'putting a ring on it' make?

I know! Imagine objecting like that!
Maybe they wanted to get married.

Juan Carlos is an awful sleaze bag who makes Charles look purer than the driven snow by contrast.

Beats me why his behaviour towards women should be held up as something to emulate.

The official website is using 'Queen Consort' www.royal.uk/coronation-weekend-plans-announced

Is anyone on here suggesting that Juan Carlos' behaviour is something to hold up and emulate, @IcedPurple ?

Plitvice said that Charles "could have simply lived with her as her partner (as some European monarchs probably do)." Since Juan Carlos seems to be the only European monarch in recent times that lived with an unmarried partner in contemporary times, then yes, it would seem she is suggesting his behaviour is something to emulate.

That doesn't make Camilla look good. Somebody at the mercy of a powerful man to provide her with a meaningful identity. In practical terms, they could have carried on seeing each other like before going back and forth between stately homes without defining it in relation to his changing status at all. Of course, if it is also about status, security and wealth from Camilla then the marriage makes more sense.

The hurt isn't just in the past. It has created a monster in Harry's case. With William, he seems okay but nobody really knows.

That in turn would contradict the saggy-baggy-star-crossed-lovers myth being pedaled by some?

But he's not just a 'powerful man', is he? He's the king. The woman he is married to has a constitutional role. It's pretty unheard of for kings to have long term unmarried partners, and it puts the woman in an extremely awkward position.

As for William and Harry, they are adults with their own wives and children. Charles does not need to put their alleged feelings above those of the woman he loves. And I'm still unsure why marrying Camilla, as opposed to her being the king's unofficial 'lover', would change things.

I agree, @IcedPurple - she has a constitutional role, and Charles obviously wanted a wife by his side. William and Harry are adults and chose their own wives. The latter has complained about some advising him not to marry Meghan - if that's true, it's a bit hypocritical to object to anyone else's choice of spouse.

The hurt isn't just in the past. It has created a monster in Harry's case. With William, he seems okay but nobody really knows.

It can’t be undone, can it? We have no idea why Harry’s turned out the way he has although my money’s on his mum dying, too much privilege and not enough discipline. None of that would have been changed an iota by his dad not remarrying.

They do not even feel the need to live under the same roof so they cannot be that attached to one another.
I can accept that it is about duty and loyalty rather than romantic love - his duty to the nation to perform the role of monarch with a queen by his side, her loyalty to stand loyally by his side to help him achieve this, his loyalty towards her for fifty years of rolling in the haystacks and so on.

So if a mature couple don't spend every day together that means they are not 'attached'? I imagine that quite a few couple in their 70s would spend some time apart if they had multiple luxury homes at their disposal. They're not teens in the first flush of love who can hardly stand to be apart for an hour.I would say ability to happily spend time apart is a sign of a healthy relationship.

It is so bizarre that anyone cares this much. Let alone that you think your opinion means anything. It's cute that you think she shouldn't be known as the Queen when that's literally what she is and that you think that changes anything.

Hotline from heaven, or the other place, depending on which direction she went.

You really don't understand how it works, do you?

How patronising and condescending Maireas to imply that because we don’t happen to share your views we are all reactionary thickos!

Some of us happen to think that what was done to a young woman in her twenties for the sake of preserving the institution of the monarchy was pretty despicable. As was the subsequent lack of acknowledgement of the injustice of the situation, the lying and covering up (until Diana exposed it) and institution’s continuing attempts to slur her name (which is still happening to this day) and brush her inconvenient existence under the carpet.

I was very fond of Diana but I don’t know why people can’t understand that this is not about uncritical Diana worship, it’s about hypocrisy!

The RF want us involved in our lives when there is a lovely wedding or centenary, and everything is going hunky dory, but they try and cover up, or remain virtually silent, about all the less pretty aspects of their family and institutional life eg Andrew’s alleged sexual abuse, Charles allegedly receiving bags of cash from a Quatari politician, a chief aide of Charles (Fawcett) resigning because of alleged impropriety, Charles alleged friendships with paedophiles, the altering of tax and privacy laws to suit their particular situation … and so on.

And yes they are entitled to a private life but there’s a limit to
how far you can invite the public in to view and celebrate marriages, and to witness and grieve at funerals, and then admonish people for being interested!

It’s all hypocrisy I tell you! Up the revolution! 😃

Why is this so difficult to understand?!
Queen.
Either Queen Regnant (monarch)
Queen Consort (wife of male monarch)
Both known as "Queen".
This has been explained upthread many times.

We all understand that thanks Maireas we don’t have to support or like it thank you.

No, @Saffronpotatoes67 , you can still love and admire Diana. Consider her an icon if you wish.
My point is that you can't change the present and it's maybe time to move on?
If not, your choice. Camilla is Queen.
Diana can be Queen of Hearts if you wish.

I clearly said that people didn't like it or support it.
I'm baffled by people's continuous refusal to understand that the roles exist.
Campaign for a republic, and good luck.

Fundamentally, Charles is a lazy, old sod. He could have gone through a long, riskier process of finding a new wife who had not gained notoriety as his mistress and was condemned for deeply hurt his young wife.
However, he stuck with the devil he knew because it was a comfortable situation. A new relationship would have taken effort, risked not working out and potentially created new dramas.
I bet he sat down and mind mapped it all and cleared it with each of his plants individually.

Ffs. He married the woman he’s loved for decades. Who the fuck would ditch their soulmate to go and look for someone new because a few worshippers of his first wife would like that better?

Ffs. He married the woman he’s loved for decades. Who the fuck would ditch their soulmate to go and look for someone new because a few worshippers of his first wife would like that better?
Exactly what I was about to write. Absolutely bonkers idea. Maybe it should have been done as a TV show as well. Blind Date meets Pop Idol.

Therefore, I can totally appreciate why he did it but there will not be much goodwill when she is seen at the coronation and many people will be disturbed by her presence.
She has been 'broken in' over several years to become a familiar sight at the grand events as a part of the brilliant PR intervention. Kate and William will inevitably put on a good show of welcoming her. I don't think the acceptance will come.