Camilla apparently leaning into “The Queen” title

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And? She's Her Majesty the Queen. That's what she's called.

Queen Elizabeth said she shouldn’t be Queen. Charles made her queen. Charles’s dad wasn’t king. Same thing.

I believe queen Elizabeth gave the go ahead later.

She did, before she died. Very publicly. And Camilla has been using this title since shortly after the coronation. Keep up OP.

Gave the go in exchange for Charles promising not to throw out Andrew. A deal with the devil if you will.

You can't just make stuff up.

QEII gave Camilla the title "Princess Consort" in 2005 when she and Charles wed. At the time, there was discussion that she would never be known as Queen, even when Charles became King, and that she would get a title akin to Prince Philip's.

Then in 2022, the palace announced that QEII had decided Camilla would be "Queen Consort." That is the last thing QEII said publicly on the subject and was, as far as we know, the last word.

Camilla was referred to as the Queen Consort after QEII's death, when Charles became King. She remained Queen Consort in all official documentation up until they sent out the invitations for Charles' coronation, which named her Queen Camilla. Just Queen, no Consort. Since then she has been called Her Majesty the Queen. As people on the thread have noted, it's totally up to Charles to do this, he's not required to follow his mom's wishes on the matter.

But her wishes were that Camilla would be Queen Consort.

There is zero evidence that she ever agreed to the title Queen, and certainly none that it was agreed to as some kind of bargain regarding Andrew. That's just rumor mill grist.

Anyway, here: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/04/camilla-to-be-crowned-queen-alongside-king-charles

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And? She's Her Majesty the Queen. That's what she's called.

Queen Elizabeth said she shouldn’t be Queen. Charles made her queen. Charles’s dad wasn’t king. Same thing.

I believe queen Elizabeth gave the go ahead later.

Nope. Once she died, Charles was like "I'm king, she's dead, Camilla is queen now." It's sort of the whole thing with being the monarch-- you get to do what you want.

You’re wrong. In 2022, Elizabeth gave her blessing. This was announced on the bbc and there are plenty of other sources to find this information.

Her blessing was for “Queen Consort”
https://nypost.com/2022/02/05/queen-elizabeth-backs-camilla-as-queen-consort/?_ga=2.233957406.1269693147.1655718344-225148805.1606918943

Does that automatically confer “Queen” status upon Charles’s coronation?

The fact that Charles decided to give her the title of Queen is what matters. Elizabeth doesn't control what titles the royal family uses after she dies. She's still a queen consort in the sense that's not a queen regnant, but the title is up to Charles now, not Elizabeth.

With this I absolutely agree - it's Charles's decision for better or worse.

My question is about the mechanics of the "Queen Consort" title granted by QEII. Does it automatically convert to "Queen" once Charles is coronated? If so, then QEII was implicitly acknowledging that she approved the use of "Queen" by assigning "Queen Consort" to Camilla.

I'm not sure there's an answer, because historically the use of "Queen Consort" as a title is pretty rare; most British Queens have been Queens Consort, but they're just called Queen. Consort just describes the type of queen they are. Queen Elizabeth II wasn't titled "Queen Regnant," she was just Queen. Her mother wasn't titled Queen Consort, she was was just the Queen.

(The husbands of Queens Regnant is a different matter, because of the fact that king as a title traditionally outranks queen. They're typically called princes for that reason, but even Phillip wasn't titled as Prince Consort, he was just "His Royal Highness The Prince Philip."

I can only speak to the way it was reported in the British press, but when QEII announced that she was blessing the "Queen Consort" title, this was seen as both a kindness and a rebuke.

A kindness because there was a loooooong time, both before and after Charles and Camilla marrying, when people questioned whether Camilla would ever get anything resembling a "queen" title, due to to complications with Charles' divorce from Diana and the circumstances under which he wed Camilla. The divorce was a huge deal, and it took a long time to grant because both the family and the government recalled that, oh hey, divorce was the reason the Duke of Windsor abdicated the throne. So to have the heir divorce and remarry was a HUGE deal. And then when Charles and Camilla married, their wedding vows literally included a section where they had to publicly atone for their affair and the fact that it destroyed Charles' marriage to Diana, who was the one who was "selected" (both by the Queen's approval and by the government's agreement) to be the future queen. So it was not a give that QEII would ever give her blessing for Camilla to be styled Queen Consort. They might have forced a title like Philip's on her, even though the reasoning would have been different.

So when QEII said in 2022 that Camilla would be Queen Consort, it was viewed as QEII consenting to give Camilla some kind of queen title, a big deal, but also people noted that she was specific that it was Queen *Consort*, not queen. And this was viewed as a bit of a rebuke, akin to the special vows Charles and Camilla had to do, to show that Camilla was NOT the chosen queen, she was not mother to the heir, and she would not have the same status as Diana would have had if they had not divorced and Diana had not been killed.

I mean, yeah, it all seems silly. It is. But the way that announcement was made and reported on, it seemed pretty clear that QEII was saying okay, Camilla can be a kind of queen but it needs to be clear that she's a different kind of queen than someone who married the heir and bore his children, with no divorce and affair, because we actually have all these very specific rules about this stuff thanks to the Church of England and the unique role the monarchy plays in British government and society since Henry VIII.

So it is kind of a big deal that Camilla is just going by "The Queen" now, at least based on how most people interpret QEII's announcement about the title Queen Consort.

Great post. I totally forgot about all the context when QEII assigned the "Queen Consort" title!

Since when has a monarch ruled with every decision guided by what the previous monarch wanted? It's one of the perks of being monarch, you get to make the rules.

This is true, and many people speculated that once QEII died and he became king, Charles would get rid of "Consort" and make Camilla just "the Queen." And he did, which is within his rights.

However, the reasoning behind QEII settling on "Queen Consort" to grant her blessing too, and likely the reason it took her time to come around to even allowing Charles and Camilla to get married, is that the British Royal Family has a dicy (at best) history with monarchs divorcing and remarrying, and the impact it has in particular on the line of succession. The last time it happened, it was a whole crisis that threatened the crown fundamentally, and that was in an era when the monarch was actually the ruler of Britain and had a freaking army at their disposal.

So yes, on the one hand, Charles is king and on this specific point he can do what he wants. On the other hand, he is also subject to a bunch of norms and expectations put in place by the British government and the Church of England, and he doesn't actually have absolute power like the British monarchs once had. QEII was and is enormously popular, and one thing she had that Charles does not have was a lot of faith in her judgment on what was right and appropriate. And even that had to be earned over the course of decades.

Not sure this is going over so great, though things may be so chaotic with the royals right now that people don't have the energy to get worked up about it. But there are people who notice and don't love it.

Camilla's popularity is only growing. Not many people are too worried that a few Diana crazies will never come around.

DP. Diana crazies? When you compare Camilla to any of the other Queens in other European royal families she’s very drab, ugly, and unaccomplished.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And? She's Her Majesty the Queen. That's what she's called.

Queen Elizabeth said she shouldn’t be Queen. Charles made her queen. Charles’s dad wasn’t king. Same thing.

I believe queen Elizabeth gave the go ahead later.

Nope. Once she died, Charles was like "I'm king, she's dead, Camilla is queen now." It's sort of the whole thing with being the monarch-- you get to do what you want.

You’re wrong. In 2022, Elizabeth gave her blessing. This was announced on the bbc and there are plenty of other sources to find this information.

Her blessing was for “Queen Consort”
https://nypost.com/2022/02/05/queen-elizabeth-backs-camilla-as-queen-consort/?_ga=2.233957406.1269693147.1655718344-225148805.1606918943

Does that automatically confer “Queen” status upon Charles’s coronation?

The fact that Charles decided to give her the title of Queen is what matters. Elizabeth doesn't control what titles the royal family uses after she dies. She's still a queen consort in the sense that's not a queen regnant, but the title is up to Charles now, not Elizabeth.

With this I absolutely agree - it's Charles's decision for better or worse.

My question is about the mechanics of the "Queen Consort" title granted by QEII. Does it automatically convert to "Queen" once Charles is coronated? If so, then QEII was implicitly acknowledging that she approved the use of "Queen" by assigning "Queen Consort" to Camilla.

I'm not sure there's an answer, because historically the use of "Queen Consort" as a title is pretty rare; most British Queens have been Queens Consort, but they're just called Queen. Consort just describes the type of queen they are. Queen Elizabeth II wasn't titled "Queen Regnant," she was just Queen. Her mother wasn't titled Queen Consort, she was was just the Queen.

(The husbands of Queens Regnant is a different matter, because of the fact that king as a title traditionally outranks queen. They're typically called princes for that reason, but even Phillip wasn't titled as Prince Consort, he was just "His Royal Highness The Prince Philip."

I can only speak to the way it was reported in the British press, but when QEII announced that she was blessing the "Queen Consort" title, this was seen as both a kindness and a rebuke.

A kindness because there was a loooooong time, both before and after Charles and Camilla marrying, when people questioned whether Camilla would ever get anything resembling a "queen" title, due to to complications with Charles' divorce from Diana and the circumstances under which he wed Camilla. The divorce was a huge deal, and it took a long time to grant because both the family and the government recalled that, oh hey, divorce was the reason the Duke of Windsor abdicated the throne. So to have the heir divorce and remarry was a HUGE deal. And then when Charles and Camilla married, their wedding vows literally included a section where they had to publicly atone for their affair and the fact that it destroyed Charles' marriage to Diana, who was the one who was "selected" (both by the Queen's approval and by the government's agreement) to be the future queen. So it was not a give that QEII would ever give her blessing for Camilla to be styled Queen Consort. They might have forced a title like Philip's on her, even though the reasoning would have been different.

So when QEII said in 2022 that Camilla would be Queen Consort, it was viewed as QEII consenting to give Camilla some kind of queen title, a big deal, but also people noted that she was specific that it was Queen *Consort*, not queen. And this was viewed as a bit of a rebuke, akin to the special vows Charles and Camilla had to do, to show that Camilla was NOT the chosen queen, she was not mother to the heir, and she would not have the same status as Diana would have had if they had not divorced and Diana had not been killed.

I mean, yeah, it all seems silly. It is. But the way that announcement was made and reported on, it seemed pretty clear that QEII was saying okay, Camilla can be a kind of queen but it needs to be clear that she's a different kind of queen than someone who married the heir and bore his children, with no divorce and affair, because we actually have all these very specific rules about this stuff thanks to the Church of England and the unique role the monarchy plays in British government and society since Henry VIII.

So it is kind of a big deal that Camilla is just going by "The Queen" now, at least based on how most people interpret QEII's announcement about the title Queen Consort.

Great post. I totally forgot about all the context when QEII assigned the "Queen Consort" title!

Since when has a monarch ruled with every decision guided by what the previous monarch wanted? It's one of the perks of being monarch, you get to make the rules.

This is true, and many people speculated that once QEII died and he became king, Charles would get rid of "Consort" and make Camilla just "the Queen." And he did, which is within his rights.

However, the reasoning behind QEII settling on "Queen Consort" to grant her blessing too, and likely the reason it took her time to come around to even allowing Charles and Camilla to get married, is that the British Royal Family has a dicy (at best) history with monarchs divorcing and remarrying, and the impact it has in particular on the line of succession. The last time it happened, it was a whole crisis that threatened the crown fundamentally, and that was in an era when the monarch was actually the ruler of Britain and had a freaking army at their disposal.

So yes, on the one hand, Charles is king and on this specific point he can do what he wants. On the other hand, he is also subject to a bunch of norms and expectations put in place by the British government and the Church of England, and he doesn't actually have absolute power like the British monarchs once had. QEII was and is enormously popular, and one thing she had that Charles does not have was a lot of faith in her judgment on what was right and appropriate. And even that had to be earned over the course of decades.

Not sure this is going over so great, though things may be so chaotic with the royals right now that people don't have the energy to get worked up about it. But there are people who notice and don't love it.

Camilla's popularity is only growing. Not many people are too worried that a few Diana crazies will never come around.

DP. Diana crazies? When you compare Camilla to any of the other Queens in other European royal families she’s very drab, ugly, and unaccomplished.

Compared to most other European royal families, the mistress is hid away and never is never seen in public. Nevermind actually ascending to the level of Queen!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think it was kinder that Diana did not live to see all this.

Not for her sons and grandchildren! Diana would have still been a force in the monarch as mother/grandmother to heirs of the throne. Imagine how things would have played out for Meghan & Kate to have Diana as their MIL. So sad she missed out on happier decades to come.

Kate and Diana would have been at each others throats. Or actually, I don't think Kate would have married Will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think it was kinder that Diana did not live to see all this.

Not for her sons and grandchildren! Diana would have still been a force in the monarch as mother/grandmother to heirs of the throne. Imagine how things would have played out for Meghan & Kate to have Diana as their MIL. So sad she missed out on happier decades to come.

Kate and Diana would have been at each others throats. Or actually, I don't think Kate would have married Will.

Absolutely not. Diana would've counseled Will that if he's making a girl wait around, she's not the one for him.

I can only imagine the advice Diana would give to a young Kate - "Darling, have a bit of self respect. He's making you wait. You deserve someone excited to be with you."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think it was kinder that Diana did not live to see all this.

Not for her sons and grandchildren! Diana would have still been a force in the monarch as mother/grandmother to heirs of the throne. Imagine how things would have played out for Meghan & Kate to have Diana as their MIL. So sad she missed out on happier decades to come.

Kate and Diana would have been at each others throats. Or actually, I don't think Kate would have married Will.

Absolutely not. Diana would've counseled Will that if he's making a girl wait around, she's not the one for him.

I can only imagine the advice Diana would give to a young Kate - "Darling, have a bit of self respect. He's making you wait. You deserve someone excited to be with you."

This is a fascinating thought experiment. I struggle to imagine what Diana would have thought of Kate. Your theory has some merit but I also think Diana would have recognized the things in Kate that made her well suited to what Diana knew more than anyone can be a very, very difficult role, and might have encouraged the match if she though William was really willing. I hav never known what to think of the William cheating rumors (could be true? could be tabloid bollocks?) but IF they are true and IF it's true that William kind of landed on Kate by default, I have to imagine that would have been triggering for Diana and hard for her to support/approve of.

Unpopular opinion that might send this thread off the rails: I think Diana would really like Meghan. Diana loved Hollywood, was very drawn to Americans generally, and I think shared some key personality traits with Meghan that would have made them fast friends. I think she would have been an ally to Meghan during the whole debacle in the UK with the press and the intense criticism especially during Meghan's pregnancy, and I think having Diana publicly pointing out the racism and asking for kindness would have gone a long way towards minimizing the attacks and also making Meghan feel like someone other than Harry had her back, which was really the source of the whole decision to leave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And? She's Her Majesty the Queen. That's what she's called.

Queen Elizabeth said she shouldn’t be Queen. Charles made her queen. Charles’s dad wasn’t king. Same thing.

I believe queen Elizabeth gave the go ahead later.

She did, before she died. Very publicly. And Camilla has been using this title since shortly after the coronation. Keep up OP.

Gave the go in exchange for Charles promising not to throw out Andrew. A deal with the devil if you will.

I absolutely love how Camilla arrived separately from the rest of the family when Andrew led them into the memorial last week. She knows what she’s doing! It’s all fun to watch from a distance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think it was kinder that Diana did not live to see all this.

Not for her sons and grandchildren! Diana would have still been a force in the monarch as mother/grandmother to heirs of the throne. Imagine how things would have played out for Meghan & Kate to have Diana as their MIL. So sad she missed out on happier decades to come.

Kate and Diana would have been at each others throats. Or actually, I don't think Kate would have married Will.

Absolutely not. Diana would've counseled Will that if he's making a girl wait around, she's not the one for him.

I can only imagine the advice Diana would give to a young Kate - "Darling, have a bit of self respect. He's making you wait. You deserve someone excited to be with you."

This is a fascinating thought experiment. I struggle to imagine what Diana would have thought of Kate. Your theory has some merit but I also think Diana would have recognized the things in Kate that made her well suited to what Diana knew more than anyone can be a very, very difficult role, and might have encouraged the match if she though William was really willing. I hav never known what to think of the William cheating rumors (could be true? could be tabloid bollocks?) but IF they are true and IF it's true that William kind of landed on Kate by default, I have to imagine that would have been triggering for Diana and hard for her to support/approve of.

Unpopular opinion that might send this thread off the rails: I think Diana would really like Meghan. Diana loved Hollywood, was very drawn to Americans generally, and I think shared some key personality traits with Meghan that would have made them fast friends. I think she would have been an ally to Meghan during the whole debacle in the UK with the press and the intense criticism especially during Meghan's pregnancy, and I think having Diana publicly pointing out the racism and asking for kindness would have gone a long way towards minimizing the attacks and also making Meghan feel like someone other than Harry had her back, which was really the source of the whole decision to leave.

And possibly a compromise between H&M and BRF. I also think she would have seen to it the boys remained close. I think once Diana was gone the BRF put their claws into William and let Harry take the fall for negative stories. She would have stopped those stories.

[Anonymous]

When will Charles lock the bucket? I’m ready for King William.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When will Charles lock the bucket? I’m ready for King William.

I mean kick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And? She's Her Majesty the Queen. That's what she's called.

Queen Elizabeth said she shouldn’t be Queen. Charles made her queen. Charles’s dad wasn’t king. Same thing.

I believe queen Elizabeth gave the go ahead later.

Nope. Once she died, Charles was like "I'm king, she's dead, Camilla is queen now." It's sort of the whole thing with being the monarch-- you get to do what you want.

You’re wrong. In 2022, Elizabeth gave her blessing. This was announced on the bbc and there are plenty of other sources to find this information.

Her blessing was for “Queen Consort”
https://nypost.com/2022/02/05/queen-elizabeth-backs-camilla-as-queen-consort/?_ga=2.233957406.1269693147.1655718344-225148805.1606918943

Does that automatically confer “Queen” status upon Charles’s coronation?

The fact that Charles decided to give her the title of Queen is what matters. Elizabeth doesn't control what titles the royal family uses after she dies. She's still a queen consort in the sense that's not a queen regnant, but the title is up to Charles now, not Elizabeth.

With this I absolutely agree - it's Charles's decision for better or worse.

My question is about the mechanics of the "Queen Consort" title granted by QEII. Does it automatically convert to "Queen" once Charles is coronated? If so, then QEII was implicitly acknowledging that she approved the use of "Queen" by assigning "Queen Consort" to Camilla.

I'm not sure there's an answer, because historically the use of "Queen Consort" as a title is pretty rare; most British Queens have been Queens Consort, but they're just called Queen. Consort just describes the type of queen they are. Queen Elizabeth II wasn't titled "Queen Regnant," she was just Queen. Her mother wasn't titled Queen Consort, she was was just the Queen.

(The husbands of Queens Regnant is a different matter, because of the fact that king as a title traditionally outranks queen. They're typically called princes for that reason, but even Phillip wasn't titled as Prince Consort, he was just "His Royal Highness The Prince Philip."

I can only speak to the way it was reported in the British press, but when QEII announced that she was blessing the "Queen Consort" title, this was seen as both a kindness and a rebuke.

A kindness because there was a loooooong time, both before and after Charles and Camilla marrying, when people questioned whether Camilla would ever get anything resembling a "queen" title, due to to complications with Charles' divorce from Diana and the circumstances under which he wed Camilla. The divorce was a huge deal, and it took a long time to grant because both the family and the government recalled that, oh hey, divorce was the reason the Duke of Windsor abdicated the throne. So to have the heir divorce and remarry was a HUGE deal. And then when Charles and Camilla married, their wedding vows literally included a section where they had to publicly atone for their affair and the fact that it destroyed Charles' marriage to Diana, who was the one who was "selected" (both by the Queen's approval and by the government's agreement) to be the future queen. So it was not a give that QEII would ever give her blessing for Camilla to be styled Queen Consort. They might have forced a title like Philip's on her, even though the reasoning would have been different.

So when QEII said in 2022 that Camilla would be Queen Consort, it was viewed as QEII consenting to give Camilla some kind of queen title, a big deal, but also people noted that she was specific that it was Queen *Consort*, not queen. And this was viewed as a bit of a rebuke, akin to the special vows Charles and Camilla had to do, to show that Camilla was NOT the chosen queen, she was not mother to the heir, and she would not have the same status as Diana would have had if they had not divorced and Diana had not been killed.

I mean, yeah, it all seems silly. It is. But the way that announcement was made and reported on, it seemed pretty clear that QEII was saying okay, Camilla can be a kind of queen but it needs to be clear that she's a different kind of queen than someone who married the heir and bore his children, with no divorce and affair, because we actually have all these very specific rules about this stuff thanks to the Church of England and the unique role the monarchy plays in British government and society since Henry VIII.

So it is kind of a big deal that Camilla is just going by "The Queen" now, at least based on how most people interpret QEII's announcement about the title Queen Consort.

Great post. I totally forgot about all the context when QEII assigned the "Queen Consort" title!

Since when has a monarch ruled with every decision guided by what the previous monarch wanted? It's one of the perks of being monarch, you get to make the rules.

This is true, and many people speculated that once QEII died and he became king, Charles would get rid of "Consort" and make Camilla just "the Queen." And he did, which is within his rights.

However, the reasoning behind QEII settling on "Queen Consort" to grant her blessing too, and likely the reason it took her time to come around to even allowing Charles and Camilla to get married, is that the British Royal Family has a dicy (at best) history with monarchs divorcing and remarrying, and the impact it has in particular on the line of succession. The last time it happened, it was a whole crisis that threatened the crown fundamentally, and that was in an era when the monarch was actually the ruler of Britain and had a freaking army at their disposal.

So yes, on the one hand, Charles is king and on this specific point he can do what he wants. On the other hand, he is also subject to a bunch of norms and expectations put in place by the British government and the Church of England, and he doesn't actually have absolute power like the British monarchs once had. QEII was and is enormously popular, and one thing she had that Charles does not have was a lot of faith in her judgment on what was right and appropriate. And even that had to be earned over the course of decades.

Not sure this is going over so great, though things may be so chaotic with the royals right now that people don't have the energy to get worked up about it. But there are people who notice and don't love it.

Camilla's popularity is only growing. Not many people are too worried that a few Diana crazies will never come around.

DP. Diana crazies? When you compare Camilla to any of the other Queens in other European royal families she’s very drab, ugly, and unaccomplished.

Compared to most other European royal families, the mistress is hid away and never is never seen in public. Nevermind actually ascending to the level of Queen!

Diana is dead. Why should Camilla not live her life?

[Anonymous]

Tbh I don’t think William is as excited to be king as his fans are for his reign.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think it was kinder that Diana did not live to see all this.

Not for her sons and grandchildren! Diana would have still been a force in the monarch as mother/grandmother to heirs of the throne. Imagine how things would have played out for Meghan & Kate to have Diana as their MIL. So sad she missed out on happier decades to come.

Kate and Diana would have been at each others throats. Or actually, I don't think Kate would have married Will.

Absolutely not. Diana would've counseled Will that if he's making a girl wait around, she's not the one for him.

I can only imagine the advice Diana would give to a young Kate - "Darling, have a bit of self respect. He's making you wait. You deserve someone excited to be with you."

Diana was not living her own life like that at the end. You have created quite a fantasy in your mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tbh I don’t think William is as excited to be king as his fans are for his reign.

He’s ready for it and wants it. That’s why he approved stories on Meghan and couldn’t let Meghan outshine his future Queen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Team Diana

She's been dead for 26.5 years. Get on with your life! You and Harry are pathetic.