In the ‘Summer of Diana,’ no one thinks Duchess Camilla should be Queen

HRH The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall visit the Sandringham Flower Show

The 20th anniversary of Princess Diana’s death is approaching in a few weeks’ time. I’ve taken to calling this the “Summer of Diana,” because literally every channel in America and Britain has been doing Diana retrospectives, Diana documentaries, “newly found footage” of Diana, and more. Prince William and Prince Harry have given interviews and it’s a stark reminder that the Windsors really don’t have a “star” anymore. You could make the argument that they don’t want anyone to be the “star,” although I would argue that the Windsors desperately need someone with that kind of vital relevance, because the younger royals just aren’t cutting it.

In any case, the media is focused very heavily on Diana right now, which has brought up Prince Charles’ history with Camilla, the current Duchess of Cornwall. It’s unfortunate that Camilla’s semi-authorized biography came out this summer too, just as it’s unfortunate that the biography was full of blatantly untrue revisionist history. All of which just reminds people that they dislike Camilla and they don’t want her to be Queen.

August is always a dangerous time to be Prince Charles. Summer 2017 is proving to be particularly gruesome in the court of public opinion for the prince and his consort, as the annual wave of Diana-related stories to mark the anniversary of her death on Aug. 31, 1997, has been given added impetus by this year’s 20th anniversary of her demise. As Diana news, Diana tapes, and Diana tributes have flooded the media once again, Charles (the husband who told his wife: “I refuse to be the only Prince of Wales never to have a mistress,”) and Camilla (the temptress who pursued an affair that destroyed Diana’ marriage) have come in for a particularly forceful annual hiding.

A new poll shows the British in unforgiving mood, with just 20 percent surveyed by the Daily Express now thinking that Camilla should be queen. Prince Charles’ officials have always publicly maintained that Camilla will be known as “princess consort” however, as The Daily Beast exclusively revealed this year that Charles is secretly planning to unilaterally declare Camilla “queen” upon accession to the throne.

Another survey by the Sun over the weekend made similar findings, with just 27 percent saying that Camilla should be queen. Both surveys were carried out by accredited polling organizations and both involve credible samples: The Sunday Express survey interviewed 2,018 U.K.-based adults and the Sun spoke to a sample of 2,000 people.

Equally depressing for Charles will be the news that he remains unloved by the populace at large. Some 51 percent of respondents in the Sun survey said they thought the crown should skip a generation and pass next to Prince William.

[From The Daily Beast]

I always wonder about these kinds of polling numbers – while I agree that Charles In Charge will be pretty boring, and Queen Camilla will probably be smug as hell, they’ve both proven that they care about the institution of the monarchy, and they believe they have a duty and privilege to serve. If it was even possible – and it’s not – for the throne to go to William and Kate, THAT would be the end of the monarchy. Let’s be real. As for Queen Camilla… isn’t that preferable to Queen Carole Middleton, Queen Regent of Bucklebury?

Battle of Passchendaele memorial service at the Commonwealth War Graves Commission's Tyne Cot Cemetery

Photos courtesy of WENN.

 

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

154 Responses to “In the ‘Summer of Diana,’ no one thinks Duchess Camilla should be Queen”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. perplexed says:

    Why did Camilla choose to have her semi-authorized biography come out this summer? Any other year would have made sense, but not in the 20th year of Diana’s death. I don’t expect anyone to actually know the answer, btw.

  2. Mermaid says:

    I do think Charles has more of a work ethic than William. I’m kind of ambivalent on Camilla and also on Kate. William just seems very smug and entitled to me which is disappointing because I was a big Diana fan. All of these people are kind of a letdown after Queen Elizabeth and her commitment to her country. Kind of interesting some of England’s best rulers have been women huh America???

  3. Alice says:

    It completely IS possible for the throne to go to William and Kate, if Charles chooses not to accept it which could (but probably won’t) happen. It will be interesting either way and I say that as someone who likes both Charles and Camilla and William and Kate.

  4. Sixer says:

    Kaiser – I always think I’d like to see the fieldwork behind these polls, too. Whenever I see political fieldwork for polls, the actual figures are cherrypicked to fit what the news article wants.

    I know literally NOBODY who gives a toss whether Camilla is called Queen or Princess Consort – and while I’m republican (and so’s my wife), I live in a more royalist area than many.

    I wonder if they report the figures from THOSE WHO EXPRESSED A PREFERENCE with all the couldn’t care lesses excluded? Because I suspect hardly anybody outside of royal fandoms really cares. But then, I suppose if you’re forced to answer a question you care so little about it you’d never ask it yourself, you’re going to give a preference, no matter how uninterested and lukewarm it is.

    • notasugarhere says:

      This is how I see it too. Of the handful of people who pay any attention to royals, a small subset of ardent Diana defenders don’t like Camilla. Those folks show up to be polled about “royal issues”.

      Camilla isn’t smug to me. She never wanted to marry Charles, didn’t want to be royal, doesn’t want to be queen. She shows up and does the job well, does work in important areas like sexual assault, and Charles is on a more even keel with her as his wife. There’s nothing to see here, nothing to get up in arms over.

      • PrincessK says:

        Rubbish! There is much more than a small subset of Diana supporters out there. Camilla never wanted to marry Charles? Pull the other one. She said she never wanted to be Queen too….lets see shall we.

      • notasugarhere says:

        She wanted Andrew PB, as did Princess Anne, but Camilla won out. It was pressure from HM, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Charles that had Camilla marrying Charles in 2005. Not her pushing for it, nor her pushing for the Queen Consort title, but what Charles wants.

        A small subset of a small subset it how it appears to me. Diana is 20 years gone, in the past, history. As more years go by, more people see there are multiple sides to this story and move on. It is possible to admire Diana’s work and still realize she was a flawed human, and to recognize that Charles and Camilla are not devils incarnate.

      • Norma Warner says:

        NO!NO!NO! No Chuck and Cam! Disgrace!!

    • Lyssa says:

      I find that more Americans care way more about Camilla getting the title of Queen than most of my British friends.

    • Megan says:

      I thought this poll was a bit of a head scratcher. I never got the sense there was much interest in Camilla’s title. I certainly never got the sense she cared one way or the other.

    • PrincessK says:

      Well, I do not want Camilla to be come Queen, that would be a final insult after the way she behaved.

      • Nic919 says:

        The system isn’t based on merit but on which womb one manages to come out of and which person you marry. I can’t be that fussed about Camilla when Charles isn’t the first monarch who hasn’t been faithful to his first spouse. They all have been except perhaps Victoria, George VI and Elizabeth.

        And William has already cheated on Kate and if you think he hasn’t cheated on her post marriage vows I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

  5. Carol says:

    Summer will end, the fog will be lifted, people will remember Diana wasn’t the most perfect person ever to walk the earth, and Charles and Camilla will be fine. I love how the public think it gets a vote on who becomes king and queen- not exactly how a monarchy works last I checked.

  6. Ruyana says:

    I’m not British, so my opinion hardly matters but – Charles and Camilla selfishly caused Diana terrible pain and humiliation. They didn’t care. It’s pretty clear that Charles married her for breeding stock to get the obligatory “heir and a spare”. I know she had her own problems and once she knew about his adultery she became difficult to live with. Still – she was 19 and he pretty much ruined her happiness. Neither Charles nor William will ever work as hard as Queen Elizabeth has and does.

    • perplexed says:

      I think Charles does work hard. I don’t really get his love story with Camilla, but I think he works hard and likes to be of service. I do think he’s well-read as well. It’s not impossible for me to see him discussing the morning political news with the Prime Minister. William, on the other hand….honestly, I can’t picture him reading the political section of the newspaper to begin with. I can see William and Kate carrying out charitable duties when they’re forced to, but it’s the intellectual aspect of the head of state job that baffles me when it comes to those two. They don’t look remotely interested in reading. (I think people underestimate how much reading the Queen probably has to do to be conversant with the Prime Minister).

    • minx says:

      I agree with all of this. Diana wasn’t perfect but she was very young and in love with Charles. She thought she was marrying for life. The whole situation was sad and tragic.

    • milla says:

      Add more women mister future king had. He is awful example of why royals should go to history.

      Diana was not a saint. She was a kid in a tragic position. But she managed to upstage that dumb family and if he wants to end monarchy he should take that freaking crown.

    • holly hobby says:

      I do agree with this. She went in really believing that the marriage would work. He pretty much had a side piece on the first day of the marriage. It wasn’t fair to her.

    • Lilly says:

      Agreed. It was pretty callous treatment by the entwined Cs of a 19-year-old who was overwhelmed by the magnitude of interest, with no support, and the quick realization that her husband was having a long-term affair.

    • JC says:

      You could say that both Charles and Diana were victims—but what’s the point? He’s past his prime, looking more ancient by the day—and she’s been dead for 20 years. He was a cog in the royal machinery, and she became one. But she had been traumatized by the loss of her own mother— and I think that loss created a need for love that could never be satisfied, especially not by Charles, who only hoped that he could grow to love her. She was naive, damaged, vulnerable, unprepared, and emotionally unable to deal with the situation.

      I think that she was as guilty and flawed, if not more so, than he. In her unhappiness she became manipulative and vengeful and hooked on drama.

      As Vicki, of Real Housewives of Orange County might say…..no one could fill Diana’s love tank.

    • Diana caused incredible heartbreak when she rampaged into her many married lovers’ families. How many children did she ruin? People don’t know the extent of her damage. Yes, Charles was a cad, but why did Diana go after married men, stalking their wives and family?

  7. India says:

    Charles will be a great king. Camilla, for all of her faults, will do a good job as queen consort. William is unintelligent and lazy as is his wife. They would be terrible as the monarchs.

  8. booboocita says:

    I’m beginning to think that the main, unforeseen consequence of the tragedy of Diana’s death — and it WAS a tragedy for a young mother to die in such horrible fashion — was that when the time came for William and Harry to become more prominent in the public arena, she wasn’t around to guide and coach them. Regardless of her intellect, or lack thereof (and we’re talking about a woman who cheerfully admitted that she was “thick as a plank”), there’s no denying she had real emotional intelligence and a feel for people. I’m convinced that the younger royals would have been far more popular than they are now had Diana survived to steer them away from some of the public flubs they’ve made.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Diana was firmly headed into becoming the next Sarah Ferguson at the time of her death. Openly mocked, disliked by many, targeting married men, and living the high life. Her accidental death erased a lot of memories at the time, but not forever. If she had lived and *hadn’t* gotten her act together, I’m not sure she would have been a positive influence on their sons.

      • still_sarah says:

        @ notasugarhere : I disagree. I was in my thirties when Diana died and the interest in her and affection for her was still running reasonably high then. People were curious to see how she would make her life over as a newly single woman. I know I was. But I agree the fairy tale princess story was over.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I was around then too. Plenty of mocking articles, scandals over police investigations of harassment of married men that tracked to Diana’s phone, wives accusing her of affairs with their husbands, charities being unhappy that she dropped so many of them. Rising frustration with her behavior. There will always be big fans of hers, but there are also plenty of people who have come to see multiple sides of the story in the last 20 years.

      • Citresse says:

        At the time of her death, Diana was still quite immature. Calling photographers to see if they got certain photos in order to make your previous boyfriend jealous is pretty pathetic IMO. However, Diana didn’t have that time in her younger years. She had to grow up pretty fast by age 18. Diana, as mother to a future King would never have gone the route of Sarah Ferguson but by 1997, she was losing respect, especially from Philip. Diana, even if she didn’t stay with Dodi, was still harbouring anger against Camilla and those games with the press would’ve continued, unfortunately. Not a good example to set for William, in particular.

      • Adele Dazeem says:

        Totally agree nota. That last summer was….embarassing. She was spiraling. Toward what we will never know. But her behavior solidified the ‘crazy’ narrative unfortunately.

      • perplexed says:

        I watched “The Story of Diana” on ABC. In the documentary, they showed headlines with the words “attention-seeking” during the summer that she spent with Dodi.

      • bluhare says:

        There is a twitter account which is running Diana’s press coverage the last month of her life. Her press was not the greatest, and she was indeed looking at some interesting times had she lived.

        I’d forgotten Dodi Fayed’s fiancee (who had an engagement ring just like Diana’s!) was suing him at the time of his death. As much as Diana didn’t like someone interfering with her relationship before she married, she didn’t appear to care about interfering in someone else’s.

      • MissMarierose says:

        The thing that strikes me as being the biggest mark against her being a positive force on her sons is the fact that she repeatedly, publicly trashed their father. On a worldwide stage. To the point where, 20 years after her death, we’re still hearing about it – straight from her mouth.

        That’s not putting the welfare of your children first.

        My husband and I are both children of divorce, but from very different families. Hubby’s parents never spoke ill of the other in front of their sons and, although there was adultery in the marriage, worked together to ensure their kids didn’t see their anger or pain. I cannot say the same for my parents. They never missed an opportunity to trash the other and it was horrible. It was like being raised by toddlers and I’ve never forgotten it.

        I wonder what William and Harry would be like today if their parents had acted like my husbands and put their kids feelings first.

      • PrincessK says:

        After the divorce Diana was still unfortunately hell bent on revenge, also she found it difficult to find a man who could match her ex the Prince of Wales in status and one that was prepared to take her on. After what she had suffered at the hands of Camilla she became hardened when it came to having affairs with married men, she was prepared to take comfort where she could get it. The only man she really wanted after her divorce was Charles.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I think she wanted The Prince, the Barbara Cartland hero, the only man who wouldn’t be “allowed” to divorce her. That he happened to be Charles was secondary. If Prince Andrew had been POW she would have happily gone for him instead.

    • holly hobby says:

      Yes I do think her early death really stunted her kids emotionally. They lack empathy. That’s what I want to say. She had it in spades. I don’t think she would have approved of Katie and her mommy either.

  9. HK9 says:

    Charles has done an excellent job on making sure Camilla is accepted so she’s going to get the title he says she should have-period. I like her and I think she’ll do a good job.

    However, this time of year everyone remembers Diana, her death and what she went through. She got into this at a really young age and was at a huge disadvantage because of it. Most women who have been in Diana’s situation (cheating husband etc…) even if they hate Diana, know what it takes to be going through that and still keep on going-which she did. For all of Diana’s cray cray, she did what she could and served where she could and I respect her for it.

  10. LAK says:

    I like Camilla and Charles is a very good POW. William and Kate haven’t proven themselves worthy of any job, nevermind the one they will eventualoy hold.

  11. Bettyrose says:

    When are we getting our American princess??

  12. perplexed says:

    I think Diana did suffer on some level (as everyone does in life), but I also don’t think she would have had many things that she had and craved (i.e fame, public adulation, CAREER, etc) without marrying into this particular family. She claims she would have liked to have an ordinary family life, but I’m not so sure. I think she did like the communications aspect of her role, and the royal job gave her something to do. As an ordinary person, given her personality, she would have been bored, imo.

    The difference between her and William (and possibly Harry) is that I think Diana liked having stuff to do.

    • Apple says:

      Before diana married she did have a ordinary life living in her apartment she seems really happy. I think william and harry would been happy too.

      • perplexed says:

        Yeah, she had an ordinary life, but she was only 19. (Prior to having her own apartment, she claimed she had an unhappy childhood.) She hadn’t lived long enough to know that being ordinary was the only thing she would have continued to want throughout her life. She clearly craved attention (as evidenced by the number of times she would ring up married men during the day), and the royal life gave her that. She wouldn’t have continued to use the media even after she made the speech about retreating from public life if she didn’t crave that attention. She liked the adulation and public praise. None of those things she could have had had she remained ordinary.

        I also don’t believe that William and Harry would like being non-royal either, even though that’s what they claim they would like, because being royal is the only thing that makes them interesting. They’re not people with abilities that makes them stand out as non-royal people. Regular people have abilities — William and Harry don’t. Being royal is the only reason they get the chance to meet Beyonce and Jay-Z.

      • PrincessK says:

        She did not have an ‘ordinary life’, she was a very rich sloane ranger, living in a very exclusive neighbourhood, and doing odd jobs while waiting for a suitable husband.

      • perplexed says:

        I meant “ordinary” in terms of not being distinguishable to the world.

    • Sparkle says:

      I watched the Nat Geo program & Diana said even as a child she always had a feeling she was destined for something extraordinary.

  13. Apple says:

    Can somebody please explain this to me, hypothetically speaking if diana was still married to charles, when she died do she becomes queen? even if he’s remarried or do the new spouse become queen? I don’t think people would mind camilla,being queen after diana died. if we never found out she and charles, cheated and abuse diana, it’s just seem wrong to reward their behavior.

    • LAK says:

      If she was still alive, and still LEGALLY married to Charles even if separated, she would be Queen.

      See George 4 who was separated from his wife at the time of his coronation and barred her from attending the coronation. She was still made Queen consort.

      ONLY the legal wife of the King is Queen Consort meaning that in a scenerio where Diana was still alive yet divorced from Charles, she would not be Queen Consort. Camilla, as his wife, would be Queen Consort.

      • Apple says:

        No I’ am saying if diana was still dead but legally still married to charles will she still be queen.But camilla is a divorce and her husband still alive how can she be queen, comments on dailymail said camilla, charles marriage is fake that’s why they want show documents. Technically charles is a widower, when king henry the eight married his third wife jane she died after birth of their son ann became queen so if diana was dead before charles became king and he married camilla will she still be queen.

      • Lurker says:

        Her divorce has nothing to do with anything. Why on earth would it? And Charles is not “technically” a widower, he is a married man.

        Charles and Camilla’s marriage was conducted in full view of the world. If there was even the slightest, tiniest whisper of a possibility that it was “fake” in some respect, it would be massive news.

        Daily Mail basement-dwelling trolls and American Royalty stans seem to put a bizarre amount of emphasis on divorce, which shows a total ignorance of British history. It’s only Catholicism that has rules about re-marriage after divorce, and England? Not so keen on Catholics, historically. I mean, we basically fought a bunch of wars, not to mention skipped over about 50 people in direct line to the throne, just to make sure England remained non-Catholic. Not to mention our entire state religion only exists so a King could divorce and remarry.

        Camilla is automatically (future) queen because she is the legal husband of the (future) king. Diana would have been queen ONLY up until their divorce. Not after. The minute the divorce papers were signed, Diana could no longer become queen.

        If Diana had died while she was still married to Charles then Camilla would still be queen. Because you can’t be queen if you’re dead, obviously. And you can’t be “legally married” to a dead person. Death automatically ends marriage.

      • Cookiejar says:

        Death dissolves all bonds.

        Charles would have been a widower by the church if he was catholic. That’s the one place where divorce doesn’t remove the sacrament.

      • LAK says:

        Apple: Charles became a free man with his divorce. Diana had no legal hold on him beyond child custody arrangements. Dead or alive, she would not be Queen Consort. Their divorce left them free to marry other people.

        He married Camilla legally, in full view of the world, before a judge and blessed by the church. Therefore, even if Diana were still alive in the current reality, Camilla would still be Queen Consort NOT Diana because Camilla would be his legal wife NOT Diana.

        As for Camilla being divorced at the time of their marriage, the church of England has updated their rules to throwout the barr on marrying divorcees. The new rule states that as long as you can find a willing Vicar, there is no reason why you can’t marry a divorced person.

        In Charles and Camilla’s case, they were married by a registerer thus making their union legal under every judicial and constitutional law that matters, and BLESSED by the church which means the churvh is also is fine with their individual pre-marital divorced status AND recognises their marriage.

        Anything you hear that says otherwise is fanfiction by people who hate Camilla and Charles.

        As for your history of Henry 8, all his wives were Queens consort. The first 2 anointed and everything.

        Despite his personal status after each marriage, his wives were all Queens. He divorced, annulled (wife later beheaded), widowered, divorced, widowered (wife later beheaded) his first 5 marriages respectively before his final marriage where he died before his wife.

    • DiamondGirl says:

      You can’t still be married if you’re dead. “Till death do us part..”

  14. Citresse says:

    I enjoy viewing previously unreleased photos of Diana. It seems to be the only real news of this 20th anniversary. I watched the doc Diana, in her own words and found it incredibly dark. Wharfe and Jephson, I was shocked by their statements, how candid they were, how much they sided with Diana. I wonder to what extent the younger royals care with regard to waning popularity because they would rather live as private citizens.

    • LAK says:

      I thought Jephson and Wharfe were paid to change their views. Jephson released a book in the early 00s in which he was scathing about Diana. He repeated those opinions at her inquest in 2007. Yet, he changes his mind completely in 2017?!

    • bluhare says:

      I’m with LAK. I have Jephson’s book and he was not kind to her. He basically said she was hell to work for and he quit because she would do things without telling him and he never knew which Diana he was going to get.

    • PrincessK says:

      @Citresse….I found the tapes, Diana in her own words, the very opposite. In fact I was filled with joy, it brought back the memories of how beautiful she was, how young, how shy , how she was trying to find her way in a situation as a POW, whose marriage had broken down. Her personality shone through, there was no fakery it was the real Diana people loved and knew. There is no way she was just pretending, so many people in private and public recognise that she had something irresistible to most people, except her husband. I was delighted to to watch the tapes, it was also clear that Diana WANTED those tapes aired, and in many ways she is now able to respond from the grave to all the pathetic white washing of Camilla.

      • Citresse says:

        PrincessK, I can accept your point about viewing the tapes but the program had an almost sinister edge to it aimed primarily at Charles.
        I will say that viewing these new Diana documentaries, it’s really interesting to see old news footage. Robert Lacey was one hot dude back in the day when he rocked a goatee.

  15. Chinoiserie says:

    I kind of think that she should not become Queen…but not because of her but because it maybe should be retired as a consort title. Prince Phillip does not have the King title because it’s seen as superior to Queen. I think the way Queen would become an equal title is starting with only having the reigning monarchs to use it. But I don’t know if there will be another ruling Queen in UK (since barring some unexpected death or George not having kids it would soonest be George’s potential daughter) so maybe it’s a pointless discussion.

    • notasugarhere says:

      I don’t think it is pointless. Queen and Prince Consort, King and Princess Consort, let’s add in Queen and Princess Consort, King and Prince Consort options too.

      There was a politician who tried to introduce the sexism of the titles into the discussion that changed the succession away from primogeniture. He was shouted down.

    • Lady D says:

      One hundred years of King’s rule coming. Charles will have approx 30 years, William 30-40, and George, well who knows how long George will be King. I can see Wills retiring (cause Will’s lazy) for his son, only he will retire younger than say King Juan Carlos, which should give George more time on the throne. So yeah, about 100 years of Kings coming up.

  16. Bellagio DuPont says:

    I enjoy the monarchy. I feel they add some valuable texture to the cultural landscape in GB. Tax wise, we individually pay so little towards them, (69p or so annually) that they’re a good bargain as far as I’m concerned.

    I look at them as providing very high end entertainment value. We follow their news, and debate their life decisions; they can actually be more unifying for the country than we like to admit. 20 years on, the country is still obsessed with one of them!

    We’ve collectively celebrated several moments of triumph in their lives and also mourned collectively at their downfall(s). Camilla is collectively tolerated and resented depending on the background drama. We all blush and cringe together at Harry’s many antics and forgive him together too. And so on.

    Point is, amidst the backdrop of terror, Brexit and recessions, the rollercoaster ride of this family’s fate and fortunes give Britons a reason to feel something collectively. And I think that’s still quite valuable.

    • LAK says:

      That 69p figure is not true. It’s the biggest con on the public.

      The calculation that gives 69p is glaringly wrong because it uses *entire population of the UK per the last consensus instead of only the taxpayers of each year.

      *including babies, mentally and physically unwell, OAPs, taxpayers, non-taxpayers, children etc

      If the calculation was corrected, the sum would be £7-£8 per tax payer per year from the Sovereign grant.

      Additionally, though the Palace doesn’t highlight it, the royal family are funded from several other places and govt depts. Eg their travel comes out of transport dept budget, their security from police dept budget etc. All these EXTRA non discussed funding is conservatively estimated to be £335M annually instead of the pithy £40M they like to boast is the only funding they receive.

      Divided by taxpayers, and that annual figure is approximately ten times higher than £7-£8 per taxpayer.

      Then throw in the slush funds. These are supposed to be emergency funds. Yet HM frequently raids these funds to pay the shortfall in the other funds given to her annually. We only find out about the various slush funds when headlines such as ‘Queen down to her last million’ blare out in the media. That means whichever slush fund she’s raided is down to it’s last million, not that she is personally down to her last million or that the other monies from the various departments have dried up.

      It beggars belief that she can be granted £360M to refurbish Buckingham Palace yet not a question about the annual millions she’s received since she became Queen to maintain and repair the palace. When WK spent £6M refurbishing their various homes, the palace brazenly admitted that money came from sums earmarked for BP repairs. Yet not a peep from the public who are gaslighted into believing that we contribute just 69p annually to the family.

      • Joannie says:

        That’s only half the equation LAK. You have to look at the full picture to get a clear understanding of the cost. Your calculation as you call it is off the mark by a long shot. And Buckingham Palace is just like the housing provided for Trudeau in Canada. It’s not his personally. These old buildings need to be repaired and it doesnt come cheap.

      • Citresse says:

        Question is: how often does HM raid the slush funds before she heads to the racetrack? ;-)

      • LAK says:

        Joannie: i’m not sure i understand your comment vis a vis ‘only half the equation’. Please would you explain/ clarify. Thanks in advance.

        Further, i understand that Buckingham Palace is a public building. The point i was making is that despite an annual budget provided to keep it (and other buildings) in good nick over 60yrs+, it has been left to rot to extent that it currently requires a minimum £360M to repair it.

        We got a glimpse of where this annual budget was being diverted when the Palace admitted that year’s monies had been spent on WK’s refurbishments instead. Which begs the question of where other years’ monies have been diverted. That’s 60yrs+ of millions diverted elsewhere. If we assume that £6M used by WK is the annual upkeep budget for Buildings, then where did £6M pa adjusted per year go? That is 59yrs unaccounted.

        And this isn’t just my speculation on a gossip forum. This question was raised by a parliamentary committee whose sessions are still available on the parliamentary website. The obsfucation was to blame the royal household who ‘ill advised’ the Queen thus leading to mismanagement of funds.

        One news cycle later and story is quickly dropped from the headlines to be replaced by another distracting story so this continuing scandal never gains traction.

        Citresse: lol.

        …but seriously, next time you see a story like the one below, she’s raided a slash fund.
        https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/28/queens-royal-household-budget

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/queen-elizabeth-II/10600671/Queen-down-to-her-last-million-due-to-courtiers-overspending-report-finds.html

      • PrincessK says:

        Oh please! I really get tired of people whingeing about pathetic small amounts of tax. I get so fed up with the moaners over on DM banging on about it all the time. It is unique tradition and history we are trying to uphold, and this bunch of royals, in the age of social media, are not that bad when you compare them to some of the previous royals in history. The British monarchy is still revered around the world and we need to support it through thick and thin!

      • notasugarhere says:

        The “unique tradition” that exists in multiple other countries, the longest-running being Denmark? The BRF does not require $600 million a year to continue to exist. It can and should be whittled down, economized, and open to all FOI requests.

      • Deedee says:

        Entertainment? Something that you can feel collectively? Not much of a bargain, I’d say, considering the costs of the royals and the divisiveness over something like “should Camilla be Queen.” A monarchy is an anachronism in this era, and the idea that anyone gets a say in whether Camilla will be Queen or not is laughable. Monarchy doesn’t work like that. Not at all. If you want a say in who represents you, you need to get rid of the monarchy.

      • Tina says:

        “Pathetic small amounts of tax”? Over 80 people died in Grenfell Tower because the council (which has been subject to significant cuts, as have all councils in the age of austerity) bought cheap cladding which should never have been used on a tall building. The £400m+ that the royals cost us each year could be used in so many ways to help the people of this country.

  17. AnneC says:

    Hey at this point I’d gladly swap out any of the royal family for trump. Any one of them is more fit to run America than our current king Fanta,

  18. Vinot says:

    The BRF Tumblr fandom (can’t believe I wrote that sentence) is overwhelmingly in favor of Queen Cammy, but I think both C & C have resigned themselves to a royal asterisk attached to their love story.

  19. cherrypie says:

    Wow, chuck looks about 100 years old in these photos.

  20. themummy says:

    I like Camilla. She works her ass off, is always smiling and acts down to earth, champions some wonderful causes with obvious care and devotion for them, loves animals, and is, from what I have heard, a kind person. How their relationship came about definitely has its sketchiness, but it is what it is. It is now years later and they are married and that’s that. I’m fine with Queen Camilla. I think she’d also be a blast to have a few glasses of Scotch with.

    At this point even William and Harry love her and are close to her. If they have fully accepted her, others should just relax about the whole thing.

  21. WhatwasThat? says:

    As a British person..Despite the fact I quite like Camilla ..I do not want to think of her as queen
    The sleazy end to Chucks marriage was totally his responsibility and despite having a good work ethic and some interesting opinions his personal life was a wreck
    I believe she should stay as a Duchess and I believe many people feel the same..
    In some ways he is like Trump..he won’t listen to advice and he will go steamrolling in and remove any good will he and she have earned..
    They took away Diana’s HRH and police protection ..that should require them to pay a price to be tolerated..

    • Citresse says:

      The BRF didn’t remove Diana’s police protection. It was quite the opposite. As early as 1993 Diana was refusing police protection. Some have stated she felt they were spying on her. This is part of what she described with Bashir for the Panorama interview in 95, as the campaign waged against her.
      Diana was traumatized and she suffered. And she was quite stubborn. I don’t think anyone could change her mind about her police protection. Wharfe was exasperated by her on many occasions which led him to resign suddenly.

    • LAK says:

      They did not take away Diana’s HRH and police protection. She voluntarily gave them up for a better divorce settlement and a complete break from royal life so that she could live free of any attachments to royal life.

      A few weeks after her volunteered HRH had been accepted, she realised the loss of status. Particularly the fact that she would have to curtsey to HRH Fergie who had been divorced and retained her HRH. She tried to walk it back and when that failed she ran to the media and lied about those mean royals taking away her HRH. No mention of the fact that it was not asked or required and she had voluntarily given it up. She even threw in a sob story about little William giving it back as an adult.

      And the public fell for that lie hook, line and sinker.

      With regards her royal protection, she was resolute in giving them up. Unfortunately for her, she hadn’t realised how much they protected her. Without them, the paps were able to get at her and to chase her down streets. Still she continued to tease them which made them more rabid. The palace twice offered to return her prote tion to save her from the paps and she twice refused the offered hand.

      Seeing the results of the shody protection she had during that final summer, the public continues to blame Charles and the palace whilst ignoring the fact that Diana refused all offers of help in this situation.

      Just like she refused all help when she joined the family in the first place yet lied to the public and said she had not been helped at all and had just been thrust out the door.

      Diana was superb at manipulating the public with lies that made her out to be a victim of everybody yet the facts do not support most of her accusations and the public chooses to believe her lies.

      Charles is stuck between a rock and a hard place. The public is so convinced of Diana’s version of events that they do not want to hear his version and even when he does say anything, it’s taken as an attack on her rather than a chance to see his version of events.

      • bluhare says:

        You really have to hand it to Diana. 20 years after her death and she’s still directing the narrative.

      • notasugarhere says:

        LAK, thank you for being here and bringing the facts to light (Diana, funding).

        Another interesting thing to re-read is The Princess and the Press (Frontline, 1997). There are transcript interviews from prominent members of the press, including Whitaker and Edwards, conducted a few months *before* her death. They detail the type of games she played from early on and how she used the press for the silliest things (shutting down Princess Michael’s comments about Harry’s red hair, etc.). Gives insight into her character that got lost in the hysteria.

      • PrincessK says:

        @bluhare…..yes she is still directing the narrative, and I believe she would love all this, as she was out for revenge!

      • notasugarhere says:

        I hope that if there is an afterlife, Diana has come to terms with her own flawed behavior, regrets it, and sees revenge as pathetic, inappropriate, and childish.

      • Tessy says:

        Sorry but I don’t buy all that either. It sounds like damage control from the royal side. I expect the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

      • LAK says:

        Tessy: it is fact and public knowledge. Every single biography on Diana acknowledges it as do her own bodyguards like Ken Wharfe who loved her and therefore have no axe to grind. This is not new information.

        It’s OK to love Diana, but don’t be blind to her faults or attack people who point them out as Charles/royal stooges. Or think that this lady wasn’t extreme in her posturings because she was.

        There isn’t a middle way here. There are outright lies being told and believed whilst anyone who dares point this out is branded a royal stooge.

  22. jferber says:

    I don’t like William much, but he and Kate should get the honors. Charles and Camilla are too besmirched by their past actions. C and C will never be loved by the public like Diana was and always will be loved. Although the royals have erased Diana’s image in England, she will always be in people’s hearts.

  23. spidey says:

    I think I must be the only one who prefers Camilla to Diana!

  24. Alix says:

    Aww, would all the other Princes of Wales have made fun of Chuck if he didn’t get a little on the side? What a dickhead thing to say.

  25. Freddy Spaghetti says:

    I’m in the minority on this one, but Camilla and Charles destroyed a 19 year old girl. Camilla shouldn’t be Queen. Although the inevitable Cersei memes with the drinking would be fun!

    • corporatestepsister says:

      Exactly. Camilla was messing with a married man, messed with the head of a girl for God’s sake, was instrumental in the destruction of a dynastic marriage, and frankly Camilla should NEVER have become the wife.

      • Martina says:

        And Diana became the third person in one or two other people’s marriages.

      • LAK says:

        Corporatestepsister: Your comment is exactly what Mrs Julia Carling said about Diana.

        Poor woman had barely married Will before Diana became the 3rd person in that marriage.

        Then there is the criminal stalking of Oliver Hoare’s wife. The only reason a criminal prosecution wasn’t pursued was because Diana was a royal. Her status protected her from the consequences of her actions and traumatising Mrs Hoare enough to call in the police.

      • Martina says:

        Exactly LAK. Any moral high ground she had was lost when she behaved the same way as she complained about in Charles. At least, as far as we know, Charles only committed adultery with one person!!!!,

      • PrincessK says:

        Camilla is an arch manipulator and had Charles round her little finger, she knew he wanted a mother figure constantly reassuring him about his every utterance and move. Diana was far to young and inexperienced to realise that Charles was looking for someone to put him on a pedestal and continually rub his back.

      • PrincessK says:

        By the time Diana embarked on liaisons with married men, and it takes two to tango, she was already badly damaged and traumatised by Camilla and Charles. I think she looked around the circles that Camilla and Charles moved in and thought well if they are all at it……. maybe if you can’t beat them you might as well join them. Infidelity is rife among the upper classes. Mrs Hoare and Mrs Carling should firstly blame their husbands and then Camilla Parker Bowles.

      • Tina says:

        Clearly everyone has forgotten about Kanga Tryon.

  26. Kaz says:

    Williaam and Harry just want to live the lives of ‘normal’ trust fund kids who don’t have any obliigations apart from having a good time, living the life of the fabulously wealthy. There iis no way that William has the knowledge or gravitas or drive to be Sovereign. Charles, if he ever gets the chance, could probably be a good King and is at least hardworking.

    • corporatestepsister says:

      I think that the minute Diana started filling the heads of her sons with the idea that they could have both, that they SHOULD want both, was when she sowed the seeds of the destruction of her son’s birthright. She NEVER should have done that and she should have taught them to take real pride in being royal and real pride in themselves.

      As for mentoring her sons, if she wanted to see her vision bear fruit, she should have lived a quieter life and never messed around like she did with those other men.

  27. Anare says:

    I have read it all and imo if Charles would have been a decent, caring and loyal husband Diana would have been a great partner. She might not have been an A student but she was smart and curious about the world. She went into that marriage in love with her husband and just wanted a stable happy life and he was a dick to her from the start. One can consider this story up one side and down the other but that’s where it blew up and the blame is on Charles and Camilla. The heat they are feeling now is richly deserved.

    • corporatestepsister says:

      If Camilla had backed off, Diana would have had problems, but they would not have ended up getting as bad as they did because of Camilla’s endless meddling and interference. I believe that Diana might have in fact ended up getting healthier without becoming as bad off as she did in the end if not for Camilla.