It was such a story while it was actually happening, I'm not surprised that people are conflating the show with reality!

Is this thread about a TV show or about the indiscretions of various members of the actual royal family?

Do any of you know the difference? Or do you believe what you watch in daytime soaps is also totally real???

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the least the Queen could do was prevent Camilla from being Princess of Wales and won't ever be "Queen." I wonder if this makes Charles "suffer"?

Charles’s second wife is not an insecure harridan.

Nope, just a trashy homewrecker.

I don’t condone what they did, but Charles and Camilla were operating on a different set of rules from what Diana thought they were operating on. Upper class Brits have cheated for centuries - they have the kids with their wife for the heir and the spare and then many of the marriages functionally end in that respect and they both kind of move on to other partners.

But Diana thought it was a love match. If someone should really come in for name calling, it should be Charles, not Camilla.

Or, you know, both.

Anonymous wrote:Apparently Camilla is watching this. Carry on.
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2020/11/duchess-camilla-the-crown?itm_content=footer-recirc

The woman has no shame whatsoever. This will not bother her in the least.

Anonymous wrote:Elizabeth Debicki is much better casting physically for Diana. I don't know why they didn't cast her in the first place instead of the lumpen midget.

And how.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:History repeats itself. William is the same age Charles was when this whole mess started in the first place.

Mid life crisis after being with the same woman for 17 years.

Which one?

William...Charles was unfaithful the entire marriage, no?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the least the Queen could do was prevent Camilla from being Princess of Wales and won't ever be "Queen." I wonder if this makes Charles "suffer"?

Charles’s second wife is not an insecure harridan.

Nope, just a trashy homewrecker.

I don’t condone what they did, but Charles and Camilla were operating on a different set of rules from what Diana thought they were operating on. Upper class Brits have cheated for centuries - they have the kids with their wife for the heir and the spare and then many of the marriages functionally end in that respect and they both kind of move on to other partners.

But Diana thought it was a love match. If someone should really come in for name calling, it should be Charles, not Camilla.

Let’s not act like Charles didn’t play up the idea that it was a love match. You can see why a 19-year-old would be confused. Charles lied about the affair, including the fact that he even had a mistress - saying that Camilla was nothing more than distant friend, for every moment until he couldn’t.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:History repeats itself. William is the same age Charles was when this whole mess started in the first place.

Mid life crisis after being with the same woman for 17 years.

Which one?

Anonymous wrote:History repeats itself. William is the same age Charles was when this whole mess started in the first place.

Mid life crisis after being with the same woman for 17 years.

History repeats itself. William is the same age Charles was when this whole mess started in the first place.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the least the Queen could do was prevent Camilla from being Princess of Wales and won't ever be "Queen." I wonder if this makes Charles "suffer"?

Charles’s second wife is not an insecure harridan.

Nope, just a trashy homewrecker.

I don’t condone what they did, but Charles and Camilla were operating on a different set of rules from what Diana thought they were operating on. Upper class Brits have cheated for centuries - they have the kids with their wife for the heir and the spare and then many of the marriages functionally end in that respect and they both kind of move on to other partners.

But Diana thought it was a love match. If someone should really come in for name calling, it should be Charles, not Camilla.

Does that mean William is free to f**k Rose Hanbury with no blowback or is that no longer under the 'different set of rules'?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the least the Queen could do was prevent Camilla from being Princess of Wales and won't ever be "Queen." I wonder if this makes Charles "suffer"?

Charles’s second wife is not an insecure harridan.

Nope, just a trashy homewrecker.

I don’t condone what they did, but Charles and Camilla were operating on a different set of rules from what Diana thought they were operating on. Upper class Brits have cheated for centuries - they have the kids with their wife for the heir and the spare and then many of the marriages functionally end in that respect and they both kind of move on to other partners.

But Diana thought it was a love match. If someone should really come in for name calling, it should be Charles, not Camilla.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the least the Queen could do was prevent Camilla from being Princess of Wales and won't ever be "Queen." I wonder if this makes Charles "suffer"?

Charles’s second wife is not an insecure harridan.

Nope, just a trashy homewrecker.

Anonymous wrote:I think the least the Queen could do was prevent Camilla from being Princess of Wales and won't ever be "Queen." I wonder if this makes Charles "suffer"?

Charles’s second wife is not an insecure harridan.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just blame Charles. Camilla was flighty. He proposed to Diana, he could have kept looking or actually dated her to get to know her. There is a huge difference between older woman, already attached and seeing someone else, and 19 year old virgin. He has no self control, is self destructive, and mis treats people. Don’t forget Andrew Parker Bowles and Camilla’s children were also wronged by Charles.

What happened with the Parker Bowles kids? What’s wrong with Camilla is she stood by him while he mistreated her kids?

The poster is projecting that the kids suffered because mummy’s attention was to another man than them

She doesn’t understand that most upper class Brits at that time were not involved in their kids’ lives and left them to nannies.

People were shocked when Philip attended part of Edward’s birth.
Having mistresses was also part of upper class England. Women suffered for the privilege and the Queen suffered Philip because of his utility to her snd the family.

Diana’s parents both had affairs, and her mother left her for an AP.