Anonymous wrote:Interesting

Diane had more royal blood then QEII and Charles

https://www.mylondon.news/news/uk-world-news/princess-diana-royal-charles-queen-23265209#

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She would have brought more peace to family.

LOL that's hilarious. I like Diana a lot but let's be real, she was an epic sh$t stirrer. Maybe the kids would be different with her? But as for any resulting drama she'd be thriving in it.

I wish i was older when all of that was going down to really enjoy it. Wearing a dress designed by Charles’s other AP to make Camilla mad is top tier.

Diana was a master at driving them both mad. Poking the bear.

I would say they drove Diana mad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems like a silly conversation for a bunch of Americans to be having.

I lived in the UK for several years while DH worked for a US government office there. We were told in no uncertain terms (by his agency) that it would be inappropriate for us to give our opinions of the royal family and weigh in about any other British government-related matters. Because we were guests, sure, but also because the BRF really has nothing to do with us.

So here on this thread, I can't help thinking it is a matter of opinions being like arseholes: everybody has one (and none of ours matters to the BRF).

Yes but as an American, I have the god given right to criticize the BRF. It’s been a tradition in the U.S. since its formation.

They’ve been the brf much longer. You know them, they don’t know you exist.

lol the current BRF from House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha did not take power of the British monarchy until 1901. They then changed the name to “House of Windsor” in 1917 because their name was so damn ethnically German. Prior to 1901, the British monarchy was from the House of Hanover.

It’s by a fluke of luck that the current Royals are even on the throne.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She would have brought more peace to family.

LOL that's hilarious. I like Diana a lot but let's be real, she was an epic sh$t stirrer. Maybe the kids would be different with her? But as for any resulting drama she'd be thriving in it.

I wish i was older when all of that was going down to really enjoy it. Wearing a dress designed by Charles’s other AP to make Camilla mad is top tier.

Diana was a master at driving them both mad. Poking the bear.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know William is sick of her

Camilla? He gets along with her just fine.

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.

She did. Camilla has been “the Queen” (not consort) for sometime now.

No she didn't. QEII said Camilla would be queen consort in 2022 before she died (like 7 months before she died). There was a public announcement. At QEII's funeral events, Camilla was queen consort, as QEII wished. It was not until the coronation that Charles decided to drop the "consort" and the invitations to the coronation had her as just the queen. That was a decision Charles made AFTER QEII's death (which he can make and wasn't that surprising).

QEII did not "give the go ahead" on Camilla being queen and made it pretty clear that she wanted/expected Camilla to be styled as queen consort when Charles ascended to the throne. But all she could do was make her wishes known -- Philip wasn't even around to impose familial pressure to follow QEII's wishes, and Charles did as he pleased.

It's good to be The King

She will always officially be Queen Consort no matter what is written.

And even though Kate is called Princess, she is not. You can only be born a princess. Her official title is Princess William of Wales but usually goes by the less formal, Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge.

She is absolutely a princess. Even when Diana was divorced from Charles, she kept the Princess title.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Camilla is very ugly. Charles must really safe with her since he is unattractive as well. It is likely Will + Harry would still get along if Diana was alive...and doubtful Harry would have married an American.

She is not "very ugly". She is average.

DP. She’s very ugly. This is her upgraded look. Much like Arnold Schwarzenegger did with his mistress. Before Camilla was in the public eye her teeth and hair were even worse than they are now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Camilla is very ugly. Charles must really safe with her since he is unattractive as well. It is likely Will + Harry would still get along if Diana was alive...and doubtful Harry would have married an American.

She is not "very ugly". She is average.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems like a silly conversation for a bunch of Americans to be having.

I lived in the UK for several years while DH worked for a US government office there. We were told in no uncertain terms (by his agency) that it would be inappropriate for us to give our opinions of the royal family and weigh in about any other British government-related matters. Because we were guests, sure, but also because the BRF really has nothing to do with us.

So here on this thread, I can't help thinking it is a matter of opinions being like arseholes: everybody has one (and none of ours matters to the BRF).

Yes but as an American, I have the god given right to criticize the BRF. It’s been a tradition in the U.S. since its formation.

They’ve been the brf much longer. You know them, they don’t know you exist.

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.

She would have brought more peace to family.

LOL that's hilarious. I like Diana a lot but let's be real, she was an epic sh$t stirrer. Maybe the kids would be different with her? But as for any resulting drama she'd be thriving in it.

Anonymous wrote:I guess “Queen Consort” is done 🤷🏼‍♂️

Feels very weird (duplicitous?) to use International Women’s Day to roll out “The Queen” title

Showing other mistresses how to play the long game!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems like a silly conversation for a bunch of Americans to be having.

I lived in the UK for several years while DH worked for a US government office there. We were told in no uncertain terms (by his agency) that it would be inappropriate for us to give our opinions of the royal family and weigh in about any other British government-related matters. Because we were guests, sure, but also because the BRF really has nothing to do with us.

So here on this thread, I can't help thinking it is a matter of opinions being like arseholes: everybody has one (and none of ours matters to the BRF).

Yes but as an American, I have the god given right to criticize the BRF. It’s been a tradition in the U.S. since its formation.

Anonymous wrote:This seems like a silly conversation for a bunch of Americans to be having.

I lived in the UK for several years while DH worked for a US government office there. We were told in no uncertain terms (by his agency) that it would be inappropriate for us to give our opinions of the royal family and weigh in about any other British government-related matters. Because we were guests, sure, but also because the BRF really has nothing to do with us.

So here on this thread, I can't help thinking it is a matter of opinions being like arseholes: everybody has one (and none of ours matters to the BRF).