Anonymous wrote:Thank God I don't have to pay for this crap with my tax dollars. Team USA!!

I would watch the Hollywood drama though....might even pay for it. Go Capitalism!

lol We just pay for Donald Trump’s insurrection. I would take funding King Arthur cosplay over that any day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I would actually LOVE if Diana were still alive and could weigh in on these shenanigans. First because it was a tragedy she died and so horrible for her children, plus her grandchildren who never knew her. But second because it would be hilarious to watch as an outsider.

If Diana were alive, all of this would be much more complicated because she would be the mother to the heir and the grandmother to the next heirs. She'd presumably be in William and Harrys' lives, and in the grand kids lives, and that would create all these issues with security and titles and what events she might be included in and not included in.

I think it would be awful for her to see what has happened between Harry and William, but I also sometimes wonder if she was still alive, if the falling out would have happened. Diana was deeply flawed, and was flawed as a mother, but she had real and open affection for her children and I think losing her and losing that openness and affection at a young age really screwed up those boys. If they still had her in their lives, loving them and reflecting their best selves back at them, I tend to think they would have a better shot at figuring out how to maintain their relationship.

Harry would be a very different person if she hadn't died when she did. I think even he's said that very openly.

+1. I don't think either parent put their children first.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Team Diana

Yup. Just can't get behind Camilla. Sorry not sorry.

+1 nope!

Anonymous wrote:

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

I would actually LOVE if Diana were still alive and could weigh in on these shenanigans. First because it was a tragedy she died and so horrible for her children, plus her grandchildren who never knew her. But second because it would be hilarious to watch as an outsider.

If Diana were alive, all of this would be much more complicated because she would be the mother to the heir and the grandmother to the next heirs. She'd presumably be in William and Harrys' lives, and in the grand kids lives, and that would create all these issues with security and titles and what events she might be included in and not included in.

I think it would be awful for her to see what has happened between Harry and William, but I also sometimes wonder if she was still alive, if the falling out would have happened. Diana was deeply flawed, and was flawed as a mother, but she had real and open affection for her children and I think losing her and losing that openness and affection at a young age really screwed up those boys. If they still had her in their lives, loving them and reflecting their best selves back at them, I tend to think they would have a better shot at figuring out how to maintain their relationship.

Harry would be a very different person if she hadn't died when she did. I think even he's said that very openly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this were a few hundred years ago, she'd be scheming to figure out a way to get her own children on the throne.

If this was a few hundred years ago, Williams would have hastened his father's death and found an excuse to kill her kids

And Harry would be raising an army in France

More likely partying in France.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this were a few hundred years ago, she'd be scheming to figure out a way to get her own children on the throne.

If this was a few hundred years ago, Williams would have hastened his father's death and found an excuse to kill her kids

Now you're just being silly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Diana, Queen of Hearts
Diana, the People’s Queen
Diana, whose legacy of compassion and peace endures

Diana, who was too dumb to wear her seat belt, left her sons without a mother.

Be hounded nonstop for decades and scrutinized for decades and let’s see if you never once make a mistake.

I always wear my seatbelt and make sure my kids do, too. The cars warn you when you aren't wearing a belt. She ignored it.

I wouldn't take a dumb T.V. show as a history lesson on Diana et al. Far from it.

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

I would actually LOVE if Diana were still alive and could weigh in on these shenanigans. First because it was a tragedy she died and so horrible for her children, plus her grandchildren who never knew her. But second because it would be hilarious to watch as an outsider.

If Diana were alive, all of this would be much more complicated because she would be the mother to the heir and the grandmother to the next heirs. She'd presumably be in William and Harrys' lives, and in the grand kids lives, and that would create all these issues with security and titles and what events she might be included in and not included in.

I think it would be awful for her to see what has happened between Harry and William, but I also sometimes wonder if she was still alive, if the falling out would have happened. Diana was deeply flawed, and was flawed as a mother, but she had real and open affection for her children and I think losing her and losing that openness and affection at a young age really screwed up those boys. If they still had her in their lives, loving them and reflecting their best selves back at them, I tend to think they would have a better shot at figuring out how to maintain their relationship.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Diana, Queen of Hearts
Diana, the People’s Queen
Diana, whose legacy of compassion and peace endures

Diana, who was too dumb to wear her seat belt, left her sons without a mother.

Be hounded nonstop for decades and scrutinized for decades and let’s see if you never once make a mistake.

Anonymous wrote:Dumbass thread. She is not leaning into the "title" but the "role". I wish US schools would better educate the masses.

You are the one who need to be better educated, at least in reading comprehension.

It is actually the title she's leaning into, as it was not a given she'd ever be called "the Queen" which is a distinct title from "Camilla, Queen Consort." The choice that Charles and Camilla have made to have her referred to simply as the Queen is actually a big deal. It has nothing to do with the kind of duties she takes on, which is a separate issue. As long as she's not the one doing the official duties of the Monarch, no one really cares what stuff Camilla does with her charities and hosting and whatnot. Everyone assumed she'd do all that. There's no indication that she's taking on a role of "co-monarch" which would be a big deal. All the consternation is about the title only.

But thanks for the condescension, especially aimed at "US schools"! It helps round out a thread on the royals. Thanks for doing your part.

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

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.

In return for cleaning up Andrew’s mess.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this were a few hundred years ago, she'd be scheming to figure out a way to get her own children on the throne.

If this was a few hundred years ago, Williams would have hastened his father's death and found an excuse to kill her kids

And Harry would be raising an army in France

I wanna say this last happened with Henry VII, which was more like 800 years ago, but I could be wrong.