People go on about Harry not being able to marry Meghan Markle some decades in the past. What if Harry wanted to marry...a Larry?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I still hate Camilla. I hope wills reinstates Diana as hrh

Charles has been happily married to Camilla for almost 15 years, the same number of years he was unhappily married to Diana

If Charles dies first, Camilla will be his widow, but Diana will be nothing but his ex wife. The Royals thoroughly expunged Diana, and no grace or favor will ever be granted her, much less a title.

She still had a title at death and Diana is the only Royal still honored on the anniversary of her death date 20 years later, so I’m not sure where you’re coming from.

An kd expunged is a funny word for a woman who has yearly special exhibitions at the palaces and a statue going up in her honor at Kensington Palace on the 23rd anniversary of her death.

https://www.royal.uk/duke-cambridge-and-prince-harry-commission-statue-diana-princess-wales

A statue of Diana, Princess of Wales will be erected in the grounds of Kensington Palace at the request of her sons, The Duke of Cambridge and Prince Harry.

The poster suggested that Diana be reinstated with the title Her Royal Highness. All the adulation around Diana is an economic decision. She is good for the firm’s tourism business. She will never regain the hrh title nor will the royal family view her as anything but an asterisk. Had she lived, she would be treated the same way Sarah Ferguson was at her daughter’s wedding. Camilla would have center stage and Diana would be off to the side.

Camila and Charles would not have married if Diana were alive. Camilla would not have been at the wedding at all.

Agreed.

And the only reason Diana was interested in Dodi Fayed was because he was billionaire's son with a substantial open inheritance fund.

As a Princess of Wales, her access to anything and everything was immense. And came with enormous cost.

After Charles divorced her, he stripped her of EVERYTHING. Even her security outside of Britain. Which is insane when you think about it.

It left her vulnerable to all kinds of attacks and threats. Even the cars she rode in where no longer up to the standards of the ones the BRF rides in (reinforced panel doors, extra heavy steel materials, security features) which is also why Phillip survived his accident and she didn't.

She wasn't stupid. She knew she needed a husband who could provide security features that included an armored fleet of cars, private bodyguards, and on-site live-in police.

On top of that - the standards she was used to from a young age but especially after marriage at 19 was chefs, maids, nannies, butlers, personal shoppers, hairstylists on call, homes across the world, five-star hotel access.

She couldn't marry an average millionaire. It had to be someone with same level of privilege as the Prince Of Wales.

It would have been interesting had she and JFK Jr hit it off but their meeting apparently was a dud.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I still hate Camilla. I hope wills reinstates Diana as hrh

Charles has been happily married to Camilla for almost 15 years, the same number of years he was unhappily married to Diana

If Charles dies first, Camilla will be his widow, but Diana will be nothing but his ex wife. The Royals thoroughly expunged Diana, and no grace or favor will ever be granted her, much less a title.

She still had a title at death and Diana is the only Royal still honored on the anniversary of her death date 20 years later, so I’m not sure where you’re coming from.

An kd expunged is a funny word for a woman who has yearly special exhibitions at the palaces and a statue going up in her honor at Kensington Palace on the 23rd anniversary of her death.

https://www.royal.uk/duke-cambridge-and-prince-harry-commission-statue-diana-princess-wales

A statue of Diana, Princess of Wales will be erected in the grounds of Kensington Palace at the request of her sons, The Duke of Cambridge and Prince Harry.

The poster suggested that Diana be reinstated with the title Her Royal Highness. All the adulation around Diana is an economic decision. She is good for the firm’s tourism business. She will never regain the hrh title nor will the royal family view her as anything but an asterisk. Had she lived, she would be treated the same way Sarah Ferguson was at her daughter’s wedding. Camilla would have center stage and Diana would be off to the side.

Camila and Charles would not have married if Diana were alive. Camilla would not have been at the wedding at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel kind of bad for Charles. He has been in the wings for 70 years. Why doesn’t Elizabeth step down already??

It should go straight to William. It’s the best thing for the monarchy, and the country.

Because that does not happen with the British monarchy. It's for life. One exception, obviously.

Camilla will most likely become Queen Camilla should she still be alive when Charles ascends the throne. He always wanted her to be Queen and only came up with the Princess Consort as a sop to people still angry over Diana. But it's been ages now and Britain has moved on and Diana is increasingly if not forgotten except among her passionate rabid fans. Even at the time it was quietly known the Princess Consort was only a temporary promise. The reality is that even if called Princess Consort, legally Camilla would be Queen consort.

If Charles dies before his mother, then Camilla will remain HRH Duchess of Cornwall.

So? Legally she is the Princess of Wales. Full stop. But I’ve never, not once, seen her referred to by that title anywhere. State documents, magazine press pieces, introductions - it’s always Duchess of Cornwall.

Charles set the precedence here and if he didn’t want it, he shouldn’t have had a decade-long war with his first wife that left Camilla hated.

Charles was trapped between two generations. Had he been born a generation earlier or a generation later things would have been very different. But no one was innocent here either. Diana was naive and stupid and emotionally unstable and expected too much and also deliberately manipulated the PR game to favour herself. And died because she was hanging out with a drug-addled playboy boyfriend.

At the time of Charles' engagement to Camilla, Diana was still alive and that is why the princess consort was floated to keep the frothing jaws of public opinion at bay. But those jaws are no longer there. That's why, as another poster pointed out, all references to princess consort have been removed from the royal websites.

Yes, poor, poor Charles. Forced to marry a beautiful woman, by all accounts a kind woman and later a good mother, to appease the queen so he can properly ascend to be a KING. Yes, poor man.

This post is so utterly stupid. Diana may have been naive in some ways. And she certainly had her own instability, though one could argue that developed after being in the public eye and subject to the demands of the Court. And her dick husband who threw his mistress in her face and his luke warm feelings for her to the media. And expecting too much?? Yes, it is quite a lot to expect your husband to love and respect you.

She may have "manipulated" the media after the divorce and went on to live her life after the divorce. That was her right. Just as it was Charles to take up with Camilla - the MISTRESS. But, there is a reason the public favors her (and favors her still). Charles was a spoiled, entitled, whiny, little asshole.

Jesus. The sexism in your post is astounding. I generally don't post on "royal" threads but, man, this really ticked me off.

That’s because you’re very judgemental.

Charles was not allowed to marry Camilla. Because she wasn’t a virgin. Those rules were not in place for William and Harry. No one even assumes Kate or Meghan were virgins at the time of marriage.

Charles was trapped by the royal standards of his time which was still rooted in previous generations and pushed to marry a woman he did not love when he already had his great love. Previous kings had their mistresses and their wives. That was accepted as the price for being royal because they rarely married for love. You can bitch about Diana being a victim but so was Charles. Diana was weak because she expected something that was not going to happen despite plenty of evidence it wasn’t going to happen. And when it didn’t happen she threw temper tantrums. Previous queens would have just smiled politely and got on with life. It doesn’t mean it was the right thing to do but that was royal standards backed by centuries of precedence.

Sorry, no. Not a victim. A spoiled brat who couldn't have both things he wanted: a wife he wanted and the throne. He could have abdicated. There is precedence for that. He wanted his cake and to eat it too. And that may have been forgivable as a human weakness that many fall for. But, he treated his wife like shit. He threw his mistress in her face. He openly diminished her to the media. He's a pig. And she was under no obligation to go along with that. She thought -stupidly as it turned out- that he loved her. There was plenty of evidence, true, but that was not until much later. I've seen several documentaries on this and that is clear. She was young and thought it was a romance, a love.

Her temper tantrums were after years of being treated like crap, by the queen and by her husband. So, I say good for her.

So, yeah, I judge him. And I do it openly. No apologies for that.

Ok. You're an angry and judgemental woman refusing to accept that people are humans and aren't perfect (including Diana). Your refusal to even acknowledge the force of history, which the monarchy carries in ways we do not, can be extremely strong and traps the people who suffer from it, says much. Casting Charles as the bad guy but refusing to see why or how says much.

What's fascinating is how much the monarchy has mellowed out in recent decades. Harry would have never been allowed to marry Meghan Markle 30 years ago. Today? Charles would have married Camilla from the get go.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel kind of bad for Charles. He has been in the wings for 70 years. Why doesn’t Elizabeth step down already??

It should go straight to William. It’s the best thing for the monarchy, and the country.

Because that does not happen with the British monarchy. It's for life. One exception, obviously.

Camilla will most likely become Queen Camilla should she still be alive when Charles ascends the throne. He always wanted her to be Queen and only came up with the Princess Consort as a sop to people still angry over Diana. But it's been ages now and Britain has moved on and Diana is increasingly if not forgotten except among her passionate rabid fans. Even at the time it was quietly known the Princess Consort was only a temporary promise. The reality is that even if called Princess Consort, legally Camilla would be Queen consort.

If Charles dies before his mother, then Camilla will remain HRH Duchess of Cornwall.

So? Legally she is the Princess of Wales. Full stop. But I’ve never, not once, seen her referred to by that title anywhere. State documents, magazine press pieces, introductions - it’s always Duchess of Cornwall.

Charles set the precedence here and if he didn’t want it, he shouldn’t have had a decade-long war with his first wife that left Camilla hated.

Charles was trapped between two generations. Had he been born a generation earlier or a generation later things would have been very different. But no one was innocent here either. Diana was naive and stupid and emotionally unstable and expected too much and also deliberately manipulated the PR game to favour herself. And died because she was hanging out with a drug-addled playboy boyfriend.

At the time of Charles' engagement to Camilla, Diana was still alive and that is why the princess consort was floated to keep the frothing jaws of public opinion at bay. But those jaws are no longer there. That's why, as another poster pointed out, all references to princess consort have been removed from the royal websites.

Yes, poor, poor Charles. Forced to marry a beautiful woman, by all accounts a kind woman and later a good mother, to appease the queen so he can properly ascend to be a KING. Yes, poor man.

This post is so utterly stupid. Diana may have been naive in some ways. And she certainly had her own instability, though one could argue that developed after being in the public eye and subject to the demands of the Court. And her dick husband who threw his mistress in her face and his luke warm feelings for her to the media. And expecting too much?? Yes, it is quite a lot to expect your husband to love and respect you.

She may have "manipulated" the media after the divorce and went on to live her life after the divorce. That was her right. Just as it was Charles to take up with Camilla - the MISTRESS. But, there is a reason the public favors her (and favors her still). Charles was a spoiled, entitled, whiny, little asshole.

Jesus. The sexism in your post is astounding. I generally don't post on "royal" threads but, man, this really ticked me off.

That’s because you’re very judgemental.

Charles was not allowed to marry Camilla. Because she wasn’t a virgin. Those rules were not in place for William and Harry. No one even assumes Kate or Meghan were virgins at the time of marriage.

Charles was trapped by the royal standards of his time which was still rooted in previous generations and pushed to marry a woman he did not love when he already had his great love. Previous kings had their mistresses and their wives. That was accepted as the price for being royal because they rarely married for love. You can bitch about Diana being a victim but so was Charles. Diana was weak because she expected something that was not going to happen despite plenty of evidence it wasn’t going to happen. And when it didn’t happen she threw temper tantrums. Previous queens would have just smiled politely and got on with life. It doesn’t mean it was the right thing to do but that was royal standards backed by centuries of precedence.

Sorry, no. Not a victim. A spoiled brat who couldn't have both things he wanted: a wife he wanted and the throne. He could have abdicated. There is precedence for that. He wanted his cake and to eat it too. And that may have been forgivable as a human weakness that many fall for. But, he treated his wife like shit. He threw his mistress in her face. He openly diminished her to the media. He's a pig. And she was under no obligation to go along with that. She thought -stupidly as it turned out- that he loved her. There was plenty of evidence, true, but that was not until much later. I've seen several documentaries on this and that is clear. She was young and thought it was a romance, a love.

Her temper tantrums were after years of being treated like crap, by the queen and by her husband. So, I say good for her.

So, yeah, I judge him. And I do it openly. No apologies for that.

Yeah, the precedent was not a very good one.

Anonymous wrote:Two thoughts:

1. If Camilla is named queen, I think it would be a slap in the face to Prince Philip.

2. While I used to think that the monarchy would be better off if it skipped to William, he doesn't want it. I think Charles will take up the burden. While I've never liked Charles, I think he's done a lot to rehabilitate his reputation over the years. I think at this point Charles succeeding Elizabeth will be accepted and that skipping over him would be more controversial by upsetting the natural order.

I don't know why people keep tossing this 'skipping' over idea about. That's not how the monarchy works. Charles would have to die for the throne to skip.

Two thoughts:

1. If Camilla is named queen, I think it would be a slap in the face to Prince Philip.

2. While I used to think that the monarchy would be better off if it skipped to William, he doesn't want it. I think Charles will take up the burden. While I've never liked Charles, I think he's done a lot to rehabilitate his reputation over the years. I think at this point Charles succeeding Elizabeth will be accepted and that skipping over him would be more controversial by upsetting the natural order.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I still hate Camilla. I hope wills reinstates Diana as hrh

Charles has been happily married to Camilla for almost 15 years, the same number of years he was unhappily married to Diana

If Charles dies first, Camilla will be his widow, but Diana will be nothing but his ex wife. The Royals thoroughly expunged Diana, and no grace or favor will ever be granted her, much less a title.

She still had a title at death and Diana is the only Royal still honored on the anniversary of her death date 20 years later, so I’m not sure where you’re coming from.

An kd expunged is a funny word for a woman who has yearly special exhibitions at the palaces and a statue going up in her honor at Kensington Palace on the 23rd anniversary of her death.

https://www.royal.uk/duke-cambridge-and-prince-harry-commission-statue-diana-princess-wales

A statue of Diana, Princess of Wales will be erected in the grounds of Kensington Palace at the request of her sons, The Duke of Cambridge and Prince Harry.

The poster suggested that Diana be reinstated with the title Her Royal Highness. All the adulation around Diana is an economic decision. She is good for the firm’s tourism business. She will never regain the hrh title nor will the royal family view her as anything but an asterisk. Had she lived, she would be treated the same way Sarah Ferguson was at her daughter’s wedding. Camilla would have center stage and Diana would be off to the side.

Yeah right. Diana would have been front and center at Wills wedding. There is absolutely no way she would have been tossed to the side. Keep dreaming Camilla lover

Even if she married Dodi Fayed?

Anonymous wrote:Why is Camilla solely branded a home wrecker when Charles played an equal role in the demise of his marriage with Diana?

And Diana was having affairs and possibly bearing another man’s child while still married to Charles bb

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel kind of bad for Charles. He has been in the wings for 70 years. Why doesn’t Elizabeth step down already??

It should go straight to William. It’s the best thing for the monarchy, and the country.

Because that does not happen with the British monarchy. It's for life. One exception, obviously.

Camilla will most likely become Queen Camilla should she still be alive when Charles ascends the throne. He always wanted her to be Queen and only came up with the Princess Consort as a sop to people still angry over Diana. But it's been ages now and Britain has moved on and Diana is increasingly if not forgotten except among her passionate rabid fans. Even at the time it was quietly known the Princess Consort was only a temporary promise. The reality is that even if called Princess Consort, legally Camilla would be Queen consort.

If Charles dies before his mother, then Camilla will remain HRH Duchess of Cornwall.

So? Legally she is the Princess of Wales. Full stop. But I’ve never, not once, seen her referred to by that title anywhere. State documents, magazine press pieces, introductions - it’s always Duchess of Cornwall.

Charles set the precedence here and if he didn’t want it, he shouldn’t have had a decade-long war with his first wife that left Camilla hated.

Charles was trapped between two generations. Had he been born a generation earlier or a generation later things would have been very different. But no one was innocent here either. Diana was naive and stupid and emotionally unstable and expected too much and also deliberately manipulated the PR game to favour herself. And died because she was hanging out with a drug-addled playboy boyfriend.

At the time of Charles' engagement to Camilla, Diana was still alive and that is why the princess consort was floated to keep the frothing jaws of public opinion at bay. But those jaws are no longer there. That's why, as another poster pointed out, all references to princess consort have been removed from the royal websites.

Yes, poor, poor Charles. Forced to marry a beautiful woman, by all accounts a kind woman and later a good mother, to appease the queen so he can properly ascend to be a KING. Yes, poor man.

This post is so utterly stupid. Diana may have been naive in some ways. And she certainly had her own instability, though one could argue that developed after being in the public eye and subject to the demands of the Court. And her dick husband who threw his mistress in her face and his luke warm feelings for her to the media. And expecting too much?? Yes, it is quite a lot to expect your husband to love and respect you.

She may have "manipulated" the media after the divorce and went on to live her life after the divorce. That was her right. Just as it was Charles to take up with Camilla - the MISTRESS. But, there is a reason the public favors her (and favors her still). Charles was a spoiled, entitled, whiny, little asshole.

Jesus. The sexism in your post is astounding. I generally don't post on "royal" threads but, man, this really ticked me off.

That’s because you’re very judgemental.

Charles was not allowed to marry Camilla. Because she wasn’t a virgin. Those rules were not in place for William and Harry. No one even assumes Kate or Meghan were virgins at the time of marriage.

Charles was trapped by the royal standards of his time which was still rooted in previous generations and pushed to marry a woman he did not love when he already had his great love. Previous kings had their mistresses and their wives. That was accepted as the price for being royal because they rarely married for love. You can bitch about Diana being a victim but so was Charles. Diana was weak because she expected something that was not going to happen despite plenty of evidence it wasn’t going to happen. And when it didn’t happen she threw temper tantrums. Previous queens would have just smiled politely and got on with life. It doesn’t mean it was the right thing to do but that was royal standards backed by centuries of precedence.

Sorry, no. Not a victim. A spoiled brat who couldn't have both things he wanted: a wife he wanted and the throne. He could have abdicated. There is precedence for that. He wanted his cake and to eat it too. And that may have been forgivable as a human weakness that many fall for. But, he treated his wife like shit. He threw his mistress in her face. He openly diminished her to the media. He's a pig. And she was under no obligation to go along with that. She thought -stupidly as it turned out- that he loved her. There was plenty of evidence, true, but that was not until much later. I've seen several documentaries on this and that is clear. She was young and thought it was a romance, a love.

Her temper tantrums were after years of being treated like crap, by the queen and by her husband. So, I say good for her.

So, yeah, I judge him. And I do it openly. No apologies for that.

+1
When I see Charles I see a selfish, gutless worm. He's lucky that Diana died young and he got his happily ever after. I hope his sons behave better.

Also they were married for 17 years before the divorce. Diana pleaded with Charles and with his family for help, an intervention, love for years.

After 12 or so years of being tossed aside like trash she snapped and let the world know what Charles was doing to her. Good for her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel kind of bad for Charles. He has been in the wings for 70 years. Why doesn’t Elizabeth step down already??

It should go straight to William. It’s the best thing for the monarchy, and the country.

Because that does not happen with the British monarchy. It's for life. One exception, obviously.

Camilla will most likely become Queen Camilla should she still be alive when Charles ascends the throne. He always wanted her to be Queen and only came up with the Princess Consort as a sop to people still angry over Diana. But it's been ages now and Britain has moved on and Diana is increasingly if not forgotten except among her passionate rabid fans. Even at the time it was quietly known the Princess Consort was only a temporary promise. The reality is that even if called Princess Consort, legally Camilla would be Queen consort.

If Charles dies before his mother, then Camilla will remain HRH Duchess of Cornwall.

So? Legally she is the Princess of Wales. Full stop. But I’ve never, not once, seen her referred to by that title anywhere. State documents, magazine press pieces, introductions - it’s always Duchess of Cornwall.

Charles set the precedence here and if he didn’t want it, he shouldn’t have had a decade-long war with his first wife that left Camilla hated.

Charles was trapped between two generations. Had he been born a generation earlier or a generation later things would have been very different. But no one was innocent here either. Diana was naive and stupid and emotionally unstable and expected too much and also deliberately manipulated the PR game to favour herself. And died because she was hanging out with a drug-addled playboy boyfriend.

At the time of Charles' engagement to Camilla, Diana was still alive and that is why the princess consort was floated to keep the frothing jaws of public opinion at bay. But those jaws are no longer there. That's why, as another poster pointed out, all references to princess consort have been removed from the royal websites.

Yes, poor, poor Charles. Forced to marry a beautiful woman, by all accounts a kind woman and later a good mother, to appease the queen so he can properly ascend to be a KING. Yes, poor man.

This post is so utterly stupid. Diana may have been naive in some ways. And she certainly had her own instability, though one could argue that developed after being in the public eye and subject to the demands of the Court. And her dick husband who threw his mistress in her face and his luke warm feelings for her to the media. And expecting too much?? Yes, it is quite a lot to expect your husband to love and respect you.

She may have "manipulated" the media after the divorce and went on to live her life after the divorce. That was her right. Just as it was Charles to take up with Camilla - the MISTRESS. But, there is a reason the public favors her (and favors her still). Charles was a spoiled, entitled, whiny, little asshole.

Jesus. The sexism in your post is astounding. I generally don't post on "royal" threads but, man, this really ticked me off.

That’s because you’re very judgemental.

Charles was not allowed to marry Camilla. Because she wasn’t a virgin. Those rules were not in place for William and Harry. No one even assumes Kate or Meghan were virgins at the time of marriage.

Charles was trapped by the royal standards of his time which was still rooted in previous generations and pushed to marry a woman he did not love when he already had his great love. Previous kings had their mistresses and their wives. That was accepted as the price for being royal because they rarely married for love. You can bitch about Diana being a victim but so was Charles. Diana was weak because she expected something that was not going to happen despite plenty of evidence it wasn’t going to happen. And when it didn’t happen she threw temper tantrums. Previous queens would have just smiled politely and got on with life. It doesn’t mean it was the right thing to do but that was royal standards backed by centuries of precedence.

Sorry, no. Not a victim. A spoiled brat who couldn't have both things he wanted: a wife he wanted and the throne. He could have abdicated. There is precedence for that. He wanted his cake and to eat it too. And that may have been forgivable as a human weakness that many fall for. But, he treated his wife like shit. He threw his mistress in her face. He openly diminished her to the media. He's a pig. And she was under no obligation to go along with that. She thought -stupidly as it turned out- that he loved her. There was plenty of evidence, true, but that was not until much later. I've seen several documentaries on this and that is clear. She was young and thought it was a romance, a love.

Her temper tantrums were after years of being treated like crap, by the queen and by her husband. So, I say good for her.

So, yeah, I judge him. And I do it openly. No apologies for that.

+1
When I see Charles I see a selfish, gutless worm. He's lucky that Diana died young and he got his happily ever after. I hope his sons behave better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I still hate Camilla. I hope wills reinstates Diana as hrh

Charles has been happily married to Camilla for almost 15 years, the same number of years he was unhappily married to Diana

If Charles dies first, Camilla will be his widow, but Diana will be nothing but his ex wife. The Royals thoroughly expunged Diana, and no grace or favor will ever be granted her, much less a title.

She still had a title at death and Diana is the only Royal still honored on the anniversary of her death date 20 years later, so I’m not sure where you’re coming from.

An kd expunged is a funny word for a woman who has yearly special exhibitions at the palaces and a statue going up in her honor at Kensington Palace on the 23rd anniversary of her death.

https://www.royal.uk/duke-cambridge-and-prince-harry-commission-statue-diana-princess-wales

A statue of Diana, Princess of Wales will be erected in the grounds of Kensington Palace at the request of her sons, The Duke of Cambridge and Prince Harry.

The poster suggested that Diana be reinstated with the title Her Royal Highness. All the adulation around Diana is an economic decision. She is good for the firm’s tourism business. She will never regain the hrh title nor will the royal family view her as anything but an asterisk. Had she lived, she would be treated the same way Sarah Ferguson was at her daughter’s wedding. Camilla would have center stage and Diana would be off to the side.

Diana is the mom of the future king. She will never be an asterisk as long as he lives.

Diana was the ex wife of the future king. By the time Charles, the royal family will be irrelevant.

+ 1 Let’s hope the royal family is abolished after Elizabeth passes. So embarrassing that England still supports these glorified spokespeople (who have zero political power) and their indulgences and indiscretions all under the guise of tradition and precedence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel kind of bad for Charles. He has been in the wings for 70 years. Why doesn’t Elizabeth step down already??

It should go straight to William. It’s the best thing for the monarchy, and the country.

Because that does not happen with the British monarchy. It's for life. One exception, obviously.

Camilla will most likely become Queen Camilla should she still be alive when Charles ascends the throne. He always wanted her to be Queen and only came up with the Princess Consort as a sop to people still angry over Diana. But it's been ages now and Britain has moved on and Diana is increasingly if not forgotten except among her passionate rabid fans. Even at the time it was quietly known the Princess Consort was only a temporary promise. The reality is that even if called Princess Consort, legally Camilla would be Queen consort.

If Charles dies before his mother, then Camilla will remain HRH Duchess of Cornwall.

So? Legally she is the Princess of Wales. Full stop. But I’ve never, not once, seen her referred to by that title anywhere. State documents, magazine press pieces, introductions - it’s always Duchess of Cornwall.

Charles set the precedence here and if he didn’t want it, he shouldn’t have had a decade-long war with his first wife that left Camilla hated.

Charles was trapped between two generations. Had he been born a generation earlier or a generation later things would have been very different. But no one was innocent here either. Diana was naive and stupid and emotionally unstable and expected too much and also deliberately manipulated the PR game to favour herself. And died because she was hanging out with a drug-addled playboy boyfriend.

At the time of Charles' engagement to Camilla, Diana was still alive and that is why the princess consort was floated to keep the frothing jaws of public opinion at bay. But those jaws are no longer there. That's why, as another poster pointed out, all references to princess consort have been removed from the royal websites.

Yes, poor, poor Charles. Forced to marry a beautiful woman, by all accounts a kind woman and later a good mother, to appease the queen so he can properly ascend to be a KING. Yes, poor man.

This post is so utterly stupid. Diana may have been naive in some ways. And she certainly had her own instability, though one could argue that developed after being in the public eye and subject to the demands of the Court. And her dick husband who threw his mistress in her face and his luke warm feelings for her to the media. And expecting too much?? Yes, it is quite a lot to expect your husband to love and respect you.

She may have "manipulated" the media after the divorce and went on to live her life after the divorce. That was her right. Just as it was Charles to take up with Camilla - the MISTRESS. But, there is a reason the public favors her (and favors her still). Charles was a spoiled, entitled, whiny, little asshole.

Jesus. The sexism in your post is astounding. I generally don't post on "royal" threads but, man, this really ticked me off.

That’s because you’re very judgemental.

Charles was not allowed to marry Camilla. Because she wasn’t a virgin. Those rules were not in place for William and Harry. No one even assumes Kate or Meghan were virgins at the time of marriage.

Charles was trapped by the royal standards of his time which was still rooted in previous generations and pushed to marry a woman he did not love when he already had his great love. Previous kings had their mistresses and their wives. That was accepted as the price for being royal because they rarely married for love. You can bitch about Diana being a victim but so was Charles. Diana was weak because she expected something that was not going to happen despite plenty of evidence it wasn’t going to happen. And when it didn’t happen she threw temper tantrums. Previous queens would have just smiled politely and got on with life. It doesn’t mean it was the right thing to do but that was royal standards backed by centuries of precedence.

Sorry, no. Not a victim. A spoiled brat who couldn't have both things he wanted: a wife he wanted and the throne. He could have abdicated. There is precedence for that. He wanted his cake and to eat it too. And that may have been forgivable as a human weakness that many fall for. But, he treated his wife like shit. He threw his mistress in her face. He openly diminished her to the media. He's a pig. And she was under no obligation to go along with that. She thought -stupidly as it turned out- that he loved her. There was plenty of evidence, true, but that was not until much later. I've seen several documentaries on this and that is clear. She was young and thought it was a romance, a love.

Her temper tantrums were after years of being treated like crap, by the queen and by her husband. So, I say good for her.

So, yeah, I judge him. And I do it openly. No apologies for that.

Agree that it’s very obvious that Charles and Camilla love each other very much. I remember seeing a clip from a few days before their wedding, I think they were visiting a school or something and a little kid asked Charles, “do you love the woman you’re going to marry”, and he beamed and said, “yes, very much”. Contrast that with a similar situation with him and Diana, they were asked the same question during their engagement and he basically didn’t respond. Said something like, “what does it mean to be in love”. So telling and such a contrast.

Anonymous wrote:Why is Camilla solely branded a home wrecker when Charles played an equal role in the demise of his marriage with Diana?

I think Camilla did her a favor by getting Diana away from Charles. He never loved her and she deserved someone who appreciated how great she was. Too bad she never found it but I think she would have.

I don't have a strong opinion on Camilla but I do think it is very obvious how much she and Charles love one another. He always seemed so stoic and unhappy when he was with Diana--when I see pictures of him with Camilla, he is always smiling and still looks at her with admiration. And she seems to have a decent relationship with the princes, their wives and the kids. I think she understands that she is still not fully accepted and does a good job of staying in her lane. I also don't think titles mean all that much to her. She married him for love and he clearly loves her. I wouldn't be shocked if he passed on the throne and took off to live on a private island with Camilla for the rest of his life!