The royal family proves that even the rich aristocracy can be tacky. I find them tacky. She was a side piece and Andrew is a predator.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My answer is shaped by the fact that years of my tax money went to maintaining this family of grifters. I think the monarchy has to go. These people are parasites, Camilla included. Her only accomplishment is her relationship with Charles, and she doesn’t deserve to be maintained for that.

If she weren’t a grifter living off the public purse, I would view her merely as a physically unattractive, not very bright woman married to an ugly, unintelligent man who selfishly put his own needs over those of his small children.

Honest question here - none of the consorts have done anything consequential in the UK. So what were you expecting?

DP: Would you view the Duke of Edinburg Award as something significant? (I genuinely don’t know the extent of its impact.)
Many members of the family are very involved in charitable endeavors, raising money and calling attention to specific causes. Do the benefits— tangible and intangible— seem to at least balance out the costs?

Sure but I don’t see anything tangible from the female consorts at all. Phillip was an exception - not only a man but a Navy Commander who went on tours for half a year away at a time on his own. He wanted to establish his independence. I don’t see anything similar from Elizabeth’s mother, grandmother or her daughter-in-law.

I’ve been told that the Queen Mother was instrumental in helping people keep their spirits up during WWII. I realize that’s probably both arguable and intangible, but I can see a huge value in that. I’m imagining, for example, what these past two years might have been like with a small number of familiar, reassuring, and even trusted voices, united in providing guidance and support and perhaps a shared identity as we’ve stumbled through COVID.

As for the other consorts, if you value what the monarchs themselves do, I guess it’s not a huge step to value the small number of people who support them in ways that allow them to do their jobs more effectively. I’m not arguing either way though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My answer is shaped by the fact that years of my tax money went to maintaining this family of grifters. I think the monarchy has to go. These people are parasites, Camilla included. Her only accomplishment is her relationship with Charles, and she doesn’t deserve to be maintained for that.

If she weren’t a grifter living off the public purse, I would view her merely as a physically unattractive, not very bright woman married to an ugly, unintelligent man who selfishly put his own needs over those of his small children.

Honest question here - none of the consorts have done anything consequential in the UK. So what were you expecting?

DP: Would you view the Duke of Edinburg Award as something significant? (I genuinely don’t know the extent of its impact.)
Many members of the family are very involved in charitable endeavors, raising money and calling attention to specific causes. Do the benefits— tangible and intangible— seem to at least balance out the costs?

Sure but I don’t see anything tangible from the female consorts at all. Phillip was an exception - not only a man but a Navy Commander who went on tours for half a year away at a time on his own. He wanted to establish his independence. I don’t see anything similar from Elizabeth’s mother, grandmother or her daughter-in-law.

Camilla = Patron Saint of Side Pieces. I am sure that she inspires hope for so many.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My answer is shaped by the fact that years of my tax money went to maintaining this family of grifters. I think the monarchy has to go. These people are parasites, Camilla included. Her only accomplishment is her relationship with Charles, and she doesn’t deserve to be maintained for that.

If she weren’t a grifter living off the public purse, I would view her merely as a physically unattractive, not very bright woman married to an ugly, unintelligent man who selfishly put his own needs over those of his small children.

Honest question here - none of the consorts have done anything consequential in the UK. So what were you expecting?

DP: Would you view the Duke of Edinburg Award as something significant? (I genuinely don’t know the extent of its impact.)
Many members of the family are very involved in charitable endeavors, raising money and calling attention to specific causes. Do the benefits— tangible and intangible— seem to at least balance out the costs?

Anonymous wrote:I know I'm in the minority but my ex cheated on me and I deeply understand the pain it causes. Independent of all other circumstances, she deeply hurt Diana, William and Harry who are innocent parties. I could never do that. I'm sure most of you couldn't, either. It's truly scumbag behavior.

Yep, I can see it from this perspective, too. And so publicly! Call it "they should have been together from day one," or what you will, but they are cheaters. Obviously would have been better for all if he and Diana were divorced before he and Camilla "rekindled." That said, I think she has carried herself as well as can be expected, and she had guts (nerve?) to be with Charles publicly when everyone knew that they were cheaters and hated her/ loved Diana. Maybe they really do love each other?

Anonymous wrote:I think Charles has mental and physical problems. The line of succession is set in stone. So Queen Elizabeth made the prudent decision to have Camilla take care of Charles and keep him under control. She’s at least sensible. My guess

Yep. And she waited to be sure the marriage would take, and for some of the animosity towards Camilla to recede. I think she may also be trying to exercise her influence while she can. It’s likely, too, that she may be doing a few things now that Philip might not have supported.

Anonymous wrote:My answer is shaped by the fact that years of my tax money went to maintaining this family of grifters. I think the monarchy has to go. These people are parasites, Camilla included. Her only accomplishment is her relationship with Charles, and she doesn’t deserve to be maintained for that.

If she weren’t a grifter living off the public purse, I would view her merely as a physically unattractive, not very bright woman married to an ugly, unintelligent man who selfishly put his own needs over those of his small children.

Honest question here - none of the consorts have done anything consequential in the UK. So what were you expecting?

I would not hit it.

Charles has NPD, I'm pretty sure.

Anonymous wrote:I think Charles has mental and physical problems. The line of succession is set in stone. So Queen Elizabeth made the prudent decision to have Camilla take care of Charles and keep him under control. She’s at least sensible. My guess

This is my guess too.

I think Charles has mental and physical problems. The line of succession is set in stone. So Queen Elizabeth made the prudent decision to have Camilla take care of Charles and keep him under control. She’s at least sensible. My guess

My answer is shaped by the fact that years of my tax money went to maintaining this family of grifters. I think the monarchy has to go. These people are parasites, Camilla included. Her only accomplishment is her relationship with Charles, and she doesn’t deserve to be maintained for that.

If she weren’t a grifter living off the public purse, I would view her merely as a physically unattractive, not very bright woman married to an ugly, unintelligent man who selfishly put his own needs over those of his small children.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yikes. That last picture. Someone needs to take Anne to a hairdresser. She was a beautiful young woman but looks like a Simpson with that hairstyle. Wtf.

Anyway, I don't really think about Camilla. She was a pretty shady person to have an affair with a married man, but he was shady too to cheat on his wife, so I guess they're two pretty crappy people who deserve each other. I don't know why that would preclude her from being Queen Consort. Last I checked it was just kind of who was married to the King, not who had the purest conscience.

I think you’re the only person on earth who thinks that Anne was beautiful.

NP. She was reasonably good looking until even the time of her second marriage.

Neigh.

Whoops, nay.

Windsor family legacy. None of them ever aged well. Look at Andrew then and now.

Anonymous wrote:I think she is better than Diana. I like her just fine.

Ewwww!