Republic: King Charles ‘is just a bloke in a suit who’s spending lots of our money’

The consistency with which King Charles and Queen Camilla have been protested in the past six months should not be underestimated. It started immediately following QEII’s passing – I still believe (and there’s evidence to suggest this too) that it began the day after QEII died, when Charles and Camilla returned to London and there was an “incident” involving Camilla and a protester. It got hushed up very quickly, to the point where videos were being edited and deleted. Then there are the blank-paper anti-monarchy protests, and the egg-tossing and the protests instigated by Republic and other anti-monarchy groups. My point is that this sh-t isn’t going to stop anytime soon. If anything, it’s getting worse. It’s getting so bad that even the Daily Mail is running interviews with the head of Republic.

An anti-monarchy campaign group responsible for organising a string of ‘Not My King’ demonstrations called criticising Charles ‘fair game’ and admitted that heckling the late Queen would have been unpopular with the public, MailOnline can exclusively reveal today.

Republic, who have ramped up protests against the King in the lead up to the Coronation in May, branded the monarch ‘just a bloke in a suit who’s spending lots of our money’. Its chief executive Graham Smith told MailOnline that Charles should be criticised like any other politician – but in an attempt to explain why the group was organising more protests against the King than his late mother, admitted: ‘The Queen enjoyed deference and it put people off criticising her directly. We were aware heckling her wouldn’t go down well’.

Mr Smith told MailOnline: ‘Charles is a very different person. He just inherited the throne and inheritance is an issue. We think now is the right moment for us to push our message. We did protest the Queen, such as at the 2012 Jubilee. Other people certainly had a greater level of respect for the Queen. The Queen enjoyed deference and it put people off criticising her directly. We were aware heckling her wouldn’t go down well. But everything has changed, it’s a very different monarchy. This has changed the nature of the campaign.’

The group believe hereditary public office goes against every democratic principle and ultimately want to abolish the monarchy. Instead, they want head of state that is chosen by the public and keeps politicians in check.

Mr Smith continued: ‘If you think politicians are fair game for heckling and protests, you should see Charles in the same way. The Queen felt like the real deal. Charles is just a bloke in a suit who’s spending lots of our money. He should be treated like a politician. Heads of state should be fair game for criticism.’

The group intends to protest in York next month when King Charles is set to visit, and claim they have 1,000 supporters signed up to protest along the procession route at his Coronation on May 6.

[From The Daily Mail]

LOL, they have more anti-monarchy protesters signed up for the coronation than coronation bell-ringer volunteers. LMAO. As for what Graham Smith says… yeah. It’s different. QEII was never protested this way and if she had been, the backlash against Republic would have been swift. These days… there’s little to no backlash. People have already gotten used to the idea/fact that Charles is unpopular and that hereditary monarchies are outdated and racist. Fundamentally, as an American, it’s hard to reconcile the idea that any “head of state” would be institutionally above reproach as well. Charles should be treated like an elected official. QEII should have been as well. While “monarch” isn’t an elected position, it is a public role funded by taxpayers, and it IS fair game.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

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

57 Responses to “Republic: King Charles ‘is just a bloke in a suit who’s spending lots of our money’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Amy Bee says:

    What does he mean by the Queen was the deal? She was just a woman in hat and coat who spent a lot of taxpayers money She should have been protested more.

    • JayBlue says:

      Imo he means he grew up with her ruling the country, which gave her a degree of respect. Lots of people here feel the same, we all grew up with this granny on the throne, so it was easy to ignore her. Now charles is king, it’s change, and God knows how much people hate change. It’s republics best chance at making a statement.

      • Brassy Rebel says:

        The queen got away with a lot because of the deference she received. Why she received deference which Charles obviously won’t is complicated, but basically, she was more liked than he will ever be. And it’s hard to imagine her running a briefing war against members of her own family as Charles continues to do. However, I think some of Charles’ problems stem from the fact that times have simply changed. More people are open to ending an institution which is anti-democratic and anti-egalitarian. And Charles’ fate as an unpopular monarch probably was sealed when people became aware of his mistreatment of Diana. That Camilla was the cause of her mistreatment seals her fate too.

    • Laura D says:

      I “think” TQ was a tangible link to our past. She knew Churchill, she stayed in London during the blitz. She was seen as a figurehead who put duty before family and was thought by many (at home and abroad) to have served her country well. We KNOW that behind the scenes she wasn’t above interfering with legislation to get her own way but, she was never seen to publicly “complain or explain.”

      Charles and William on on the other hand complain and explain to the media any chance they get. The mystic of the monarchy has all but, disappeared now HMTQ has gone. Those two are showing themselves to be spoilt man-babies who really don’t know when to let things go. The power has gone to their heads and unless they learn to rein it in, it will be their downfall.

      • booboocita says:

        THIS ^^^^. ERII was a living link to the UK’s history, and some of its best years. She was there and visible during the Blitz (who can forget all the pics of her as a mechanic?) and WWII, the austerity years following WWII, the Cool Britannia years of the 1960s and the British Invasion (The Who, the Rolling Stones, and the Beatles, among others). And she was there during the Suez crisis, Thatcherism, Brexit, and other crises.

        I think it’s natural for folks to want to close the chapter and start a new one. The very existence of Charles doesn’t allow that. Another, younger monarch, or even just a monarch with a “younger” outlook, might change that. But Chucky Boy just wants to string along, same old, same old, no changes necessary. Worse, he seems to think the glories of the past are his to command. Dude, it’s over. Give it up.

      • The Recluse says:

        Technically, the Queen could/would have been considered part of the Greatest Generation – they dealt with WW2.

    • Blue Nails Betty says:

      I completely agree with you.

      However, I think he is referring to the gravitas the queen brought to the job. Even before she became queen she was service oriented and knew her place wasn’t at ground level with the people but as a leader of the people. It was her job to be The Queen™️ and to be someone the British could look to for reassurance during hard times. She held herself to higher standards, followed the rules, and created a dignity that eluded so many previous monarchs. There was serious gossip and scandals about her family but never about Elizabeth. Gossip about Elizabeth happened much later in life after her reputation as The Queen™️ had been cemented.

      Charles, on the other hand, has been publicly weak and desperate for approval. Even though he always knew he would be king, he knew his mother/queen didn’t have faith in his ability to do the job. So he turned to the people to get approval through his work, his disastrous first marriage, and even his marriage to his second wife (see, they were in love!, fated to be together!, please accept me!).

      But here is the problem for Charles, the more comfortable people are when they are with you the more comfortable they feel in speaking to you. People were intimidated by the aloof queen. They are not intimidated by Charles.

      He has tried so hard to use Diana’s playbook in an attempt to receive approval that he failed to acknowledge the real reason Diana was both popular and respected: she was genuinely kind. The masses can see Charles is a pretentious asshole so all the glad handing he does is hollow and a big fat lie. They see right through him and they are going to tell him to his face that he is a loser and the monarchy should be abolished.

      Anyhoo, that’s my take on it.

      • Chrissy says:

        Well stated. The late Queen had gravitas. She took her job, and her life, seriously. Very few scandals can be associated with QEII (never mind when she was just Princess Elizabeth), while Chuck has had a litany of scandals, gaffes, offensive comments and decisions being made that prove his ass-holery as a man and father, never mind a monarch with an endless access to public funds and assumed deference. His insistence on deference being paid to his cheating and scheming second wife also doesn’t help his image. The way he’s lived his life is the mirror image of how his mother lived hers and so, he will be treated accordingly – with contempt and suspicion.

      • Tessa says:

        His first marriage did not have to be disastrous if he worked on the marriage and stopped seeing Camilla and other women. He saw Diana as providing heirs for him.

    • SarahCS says:

      I second the other comments and will add that she was intrinsically built into the fabric of our society – her face on our money and stamps, her initials on letterboxes, every day you had reminders of her. They can change those things to Chuck but it’s a jarring change when few of us lived in an era without ER everywhere.

      • CallyForbes says:

        I always look for the monarch’s cypher on every post box I see. Mostly EIIR but a few GVIR around here.

  2. kelleybelle says:

    An ugly bloke at that and his crypt-keeper wife.

    • Isabella says:

      There is the problem. They are a horrendous, dowdy, boring couple, like out of Jane Austen.They literally tossed charismatic Harry’s beautiful family out of their paid for UK home. Giving it for free to a pedophile brother who disdains it. They avoid the biracial grandkids and play games with their titles.

  3. Mary Pester says:

    The Queen was respected by many for her devotion to the job. Many disagreed with some of her decisions, but respected her. The only time she came close to losing the respect and affection was on the death of Princess diana. Charlie on the other hand has always been regarded as a drip and a selfish little drip at that. We watched in disbelief at the way he treated Diana and the way he has treated his youngest son and his family. Camzilla has felt the countries wrath before and now that Charlie boy has ignored his mother’s wishes and SPOKEN wishes at that, both of them can expect a lot more demonstrating every time they appear AND at the coronation. THAT is why they are pushing botox barbie down our throats every day, deflection, deflection, deflection. But botox had better keep that combat jacket handy as she’s going to need it when camzilla turns the presses guns on her

    • Blue Nails Betty says:

      I am who I am and I admit my petty bone is the largest bone in my body. Even though I loathe Charles and Camilla, I will hypocritically watch every second of the coronation ceremony (and its pre-game pomp). And I look forward to the war that Camilla slaps down on Kate and the fall out from the press briefings between the two houses (bonus: job security for Celebitchy writers!)

      Also, Charles and William have a truce right now due to a common enemy (HM) but once the coronation is over, William will see a whole new Charles and William is also going to get slapped down.

      I have invested in shares of popcorn so I’m getting rich off of the War of the Windsors. 😁

      • Tessa says:

        I think Charley is intimidated by Incandescent Bill and Bill won’t be slapped down. Charles is too wimpy for it. The time to slap him down was when Bill wanted Harry out.

  4. CC says:

    In part of my dream last night, I was at Starbucks and wanted a sugar packet, but Charles grabbed all the sugar packets as I was reaching for one and refused to share.
    Now, would Charles in reality hoard all the sugar packets? Time will tell.

  5. Snuffles says:

    The Queen had deference because she and her family stuck it in the palace during WWII and served in whatever small way she could. She got married and started having babies super young, ascended the throne super young. She never had a life outside her royal obligations and did what she was told by the courtiers.

    Charles is coming into this thing with 50+ years of living. Being a playboy prince, then an emotionally abusive and adulterous husband, a distant and absentee father, and an opinionated Prince when it came to politics.

    While the Queen could be largely a blank slate people could project their ideals onto, Charles’s slate is chaotic and messy. He can’t wipe it clean and start fresh. And no matter how much he spins stuff, people will never forget the basics: he’s an adulterer who is pushing his side piece on the public and he can’t keep his family together as it’s patriarch.

  6. Canadensis says:

    Camilla’s academic credential in KENNEL HYGIENE ought to have helped her conquer her yesterday’s knickers issue, but you can only lead a horse to water.

    That theme is a universal one celebrated right now in the hilarious trending popular song with lyrics worthy of a new national anthem I’ll grow up tomorrow:

    Haven’t done my laundry in a million weeks —

    But I’m feeling so chic with my thong inside out —

    Let’s go out

  7. ThatsNotOkay says:

    He’s also petty and punitive, holier-than-thou, yet corrupt and amoral. And you have to stick with him for life?

  8. Cessily says:

    The lengths they are going to cover up the booing is hilarious. I still find it very telling that they can’t get volunteer bell ringers and the Invictus games has an abundance of volunteers signed up, so many that they will be turning some down. If the BRF and firm were smart they would start making some drastic and very real changes before it’s too late. It needs to start with their toxic rota and tabloid relationship.

    • ArtHistorian says:

      I do think that the (in)visible contract with the tabloid media has and is playing a large role in eroding the respect towards the Windsors. While it is true that times have changed and it will be very interesting to see what happens in Scandinavia when the currently elderly monarchs passes away. But the UK is rather unique in that its tabloid press is not only incredibly toxic but also more influential than it should be – and it wants it pound of royal flesh for entertainment clicks, and scandal sells over airbrushed perfection.

      I don’t know if I’m right but I have the impression that the toxic relationship between the Windsors and the tabloids became a very real thing in the 90s, during the War of the Waleses. It was interpersonal warfare that played out in public through the press – and it was very damaging to Brand Windsor, especially when Diana died. And then Camilla’s rehabilitation PR, which relied on throwing other royals, especially Harry, under the bus. And now it is open warfare again where the Windsors wage a public war on Harry and Meghan to the point that they left.

      Allowing a member of the BRF to be slandered to such a degree in the press is a very short-sighted tactic because it opens the door to doing this to other royals – as a long-term strategy the enormous barrage of tabloid slander against them is hurting Brand Windsor. Especially since Harry and Meghan finally started fighting back with interviews, the documentary and Harry’s memoirs – all the while having a much larger global media reach than the Windsors.

      I don’t think that Harry wants to damage the British monarchy but the fact of the matter is that he has by simply drawing back the curtain on what happens behind the scenes. And he only did that because they wouldn’t let him and Meghan be even after they left the royal system. The Windsors should simply have let them go – but Charles, William and Camilla are too petty and dumb, and they are also caught in the invisible contract with the media that Charles and Camilla set up to rehabilitate Camilla. That William decided to enter this contract as well after refusing for years is him cutting off his nose to spite his face because he can’t handle that his brother got married and decided to put his wife and child first.

      • Prairiegirl says:

        @Art Historian: As a royal watcher since 1981 and a citizen of a Commonwealth country, I completely agree with your take on this.

        What boggles the mind isn’t *why* the Family / courtiers allow the tabloid press to smear HM but *that* they do, and to a degree that inflicts long-term damage to the brand. It’s such short term thinking. In addition, royal events are security nightmares; though the line of succession is secure *today* a determined terrorist could take out the Waleses if they’re travelling together or on holiday or whatnot. The King is elderly and his reign likely short. It wouldn’t be the first time in the country’s history a red-headed spare became king after the untimely death of his brother, followed by his father’s death, and who then went on to become a hugely consequential monarch. On the off-chance it (tragically) happens again: why poison the well?

      • HamsterJam says:

        “Allowing a member of the BRF to be slandered to such a degree in the press is a very short-sighted tactic because it opens the door to doing this to other royals”

        I would go further and say that they did not just “allow” slander they bought and paid for thousands of russian bots to create slander for them.

    • Bamaborn says:

      Always thought they surely studied the history of their Romanov cousins, but this group apparently hasn’t. And, they didn’t even have sm during those times.

  9. Over it says:

    They should protest just for that hideous hat on cameltoe head .

  10. EmG says:

    I think the royals need to be careful – they shouldn’t underestimate how much the current British gov is willing to throw them under the bus to distract from their own awful policy choices and the terrible economic condition of the country. This coronation and their house shenanigans are a great circus to put up front and center.

  11. Lucy says:

    I love that some of the protests are people holding blank paper. It is a bit menacing in a way, and the fact that folks holding bank paper are being detained by police is also menacing.

    As someone of Irish descent who is American because of the English potato genocide, I look forward to any and all Finding Out that the English monarchy experiences.

    • SusieQ says:

      It really is amazing to think about how the institution has caused harm to so many in the last 1000 years. On my mother’s side, I’m pretty much completely of Irish descent, and her family came to America during the famine since the alternative was starving to death. But, because this world is complicated, my father’s family is descended from the Plantagenets and directly benefited for centuries from that association.

      Homes, livelihoods, culture, languages, and history have been stolen by the institution of the monarchy. It started on the island itself and then fanned out to the rest of the world. It’s beyond bewildering to think about.

      • Bisynaptic says:

        What the English/British did to the Irish—as bad as it was—is nothing compared to what they collectively did to indigenous North Americans.

  12. CallyForbes says:

    Agreed (no one could disagree really) that constitutional monarchy has its issues, but I think that this group is delusional if they think that merely by replacing it with an elected head of state is going fix anything. On their website they say: ‘The monarchy is a broken institution. A head of state that’s chosen by us could really represent our hopes and aspirations – and help us keep politicians in check.’ Very optimistic. But I think we might end up with President Nigel Farage. Who might be voted out four years later and replaced with President Boris Johnson. Neither of whom would I imagine represent the aspirations of Republic’s directors.

    • SomeChick says:

      Of course. But the point is that they can be removed and replaced. And they would be chosen by the people rather than an accident of birth.

      The shadowy, unelected, publicly funded power that this family holds is uncontrollable. And nobody gets any sort of say. As Monty Python says, king? I didn’t vote for him!

    • The Hench says:

      Yes, exactly right. There are advantages to an apolitical, constitutional monarchy but I think this one is now well overdue a course correction of the kind Charles II had to acquiesce to in order to become, well, Charles II.

      For my money I think the ‘family’ needs pruning and a bright light shone into the finances. The Royals need to be far more accountable. The amount of tax they pay is laughable and, despite being phenomenally rich (in assets as well as money) they constantly tap-dance to get everything paid for. The ones that are left also need to get off their arses and work more and in a way that’s actually constructive rather than performative.

      • CallyForbes says:

        Yes reforms along the lines you suggest are essential and is the pragmatic thing to do. But if it were decided instead to be revolutionary and replace our constitutional monarchy with a presidential system, based possibly on the one they have in Ireland, it would be expensive and time-consuming and there’d be a lot of arguing about the best way to do it, how to choose the candidates etc etc and it would all go on and on and whatever we ended up with there would always be people dissatisfied with it. Unless they could do something simple such as give the job of Head of State to the Speaker of the House of Commons. Thinking about it, that’s not a bad idea…

    • Prairiegirl says:

      @CallyForbes: This website is ridiculously naive about (1) how difficult it is to make consequential institutional change across an entire nation (i.e., from one form of governance to another) peacefully (ref.: USA, France, China, Iran, South Africa) and (2) the long-lasting impact of those changes to a country’s domestic security, international standing, and economic capacity. The UK government and the governments of the three Commonwealth ‘settler’ nations (Canada, Australia, New Zealand) don’t have the stomach for or democratic authority to make any changes at this time (or in the foreseeable future). Not least of which, any time someone refers to the RF as ‘colonizers’ I have to laugh – you’re writing that in English, on a website posted in North America. Unless you’re writing about colonizers in an Indigenous language – Cree, Ojibwa etc., etc. – well, who’s the colonizer now?

      • kirk says:

        Huh? People should avoid doing something because it looks hard? Gossip websites may make topics seem trivial by dint of their target audience and space limitations, but they are useful in that they spark conversations. But it sounds like you just want everyone to shutup because they don’t fit your preferred ‘perfect’ profile as people you deem morally capable of critiquing unequal and unfair systems. Speaking of RF colonization, consider white ppl in Ireland and Wales.

    • notasugarhere says:

      LOL, this is the exact pro-monarchy phrasing that is used by the racist posters on the Fail. It can be dismantled, it will not be that difficult, and no the UK does not have to end up with a Farage or Johnson. They could end up with a system of short-term, appointed-by-diverse-committee representative along the lines of a Governor General of Canada. The point it, it is up to The People and shouldn’t be hereditary.

  13. Inge says:

    It’s not just Charles, it’s the whole anointed with holy oil from jerusalem nonsense(when the people being anointed were not allowed to be married in church…. sinners on the throne)

    I’m from the Netherlands where I support a republic as well, but Willem-Alexander did not wear a crown, his coronation was much more modern.

    • ArtHistorian says:

      In Denmark there is no coronation because that reeks of the straight up tyranny the absolutist monarchy , which was abolished in 1849. The new monarch is simply publicly proclaimed by the PM on the balcony of the Parliamentary building the day after the previous monarch’s death.

  14. Mel says:

    Chuckles really overestimated folks willingness to put up with him and Queen of the Jumpoffs. I mean did he really think how it would look pushing her for Queen after Diana and then trying to deny titles to his bi-racial grandchildren. All that inbreeding really has made them stupid.

  15. Jaded says:

    Charles was proclaimed head of state in Canada at the end of September. A sad day. I do not want him as my head of state. I do not want his ugly face on our money. I do not want him and Prunie McPruneface to visit my country, and I think when they do visit they will face protestors here too. There’s a lengthy list of black marks against the two of them, starting with the unconscionable way they treated Diana to the way he treated his sons, especially Harry, and continues to do it through his unholy alliance with the tabloid scum. Cash for access, BFFs who were raging pedophiles, protecting a brother whose good friend, a convicted criminal, handed him a trafficked teenager to rape, having a public hissy fit over a leaky pen, the list goes on and on.

    Not my king indeed.

    • EasternViolet says:

      SAME. I seriously hope there are no plans to put his face on our currency. I think the government is at least aware of the appetite for that… Just make it a mapleleaf on one side and an animal on the other.

  16. EasternViolet says:

    I love these photos of the protests!

    I think it was the same pap walk where Camzilla got the Burger King crown and thanked her pleb nervously.

  17. Susie says:

    The queen was a symbol a blank slate that you could move around to mean 100 different contradictory things. She was both for and against brexit depending on who was trying to use her name. She also had time. She’s had protests and issues including the Diana years but Her age allowed her to be a connection to when Britain was still a world super power. She was able to wait things out.
    Charles is very much a person. Even calling her the queen vs Charles by his actual name. The queen used her time as monarch to make her personality blanker while he used his time as prince to add so many details to his story. We know this dude wants to be a tampon in his mistress. It’s hard to be solemn and deferential when you know that about a person. Many things we know about the queen are assumptions while with Charles its very detailed facts. In a way his need to explain his side is so deeply human that we can’t pretend he is a magical special dude chosen specifically by God. And Charles doesn’t have the time to wait it out. Instead we know will be doing this in a few years anyway so who cares. Plus marrying Camilla and even Harry and the crown reminding us about Camilla back then also means the old school royalists who may not like a divorcee on the throne and the middle age group that remembers the Diana actively despise her. She had lost the wicked stepmother narrative to be a fun old broad and now gained it back at the absolute worst time. And the advisors who are supposed to be thinking long term can’t see beyond their own petty racist noses.
    I truly don’t think the monarchy’s death will be fast too many people are invested in the perks. Who needs an earl or duke if you dont have a king. There will be a thousand cuts then some future PM will say screw it why are we spending this money. Like they did with the yacht. In places like cda I think and hope it will be the adminstrative hassle of changing monarchs in quick succession. So many expensive things have official connections to the head of state Cda isn’t as republican compared to Australia but we are very very apathetic with a side of francophone and First Nations minority who I doubt want ANY of this. And William losing his Diana looks and harrys description of him has been a subtle but massive punch to his standing. He is losing the narrative of being Diana’s golden son come to the rescue. Plus Harry and Meghan’s connection to multiple parts of Canada. If we stay long enough to get william I’m fairly sure he will be our last head of state and I don’t think we would even come to the end of his reign

  18. Susie says:

    Also what are the plans for the very inevitable and probably sizeable protests that will happen the Chubbly weekend. Are the preparing for it or hoping it goes away. And if they involve police like they have for the very small ones then the intl media will have a feast.
    The British media is forcing this narrative that the public loves the king but it is very obv the public is refusing it. Even republic admitted they they wouldn’t have even tried these level of protests during the queens reign. These people plan as if Britain is in a media blackout that they control completely. When even this protest shows the media can’t keep quiet. I feel like no one in that bubble is smart enough to actually be worried. I don’t think his Chubbly will pass without a major non-Sussex issue. They can’t even handle pens

  19. Vanessa says:

    In my opinion I think a lot people are being willfully obtuse about The Situation from the very beginning the courtiers and the royal family. Having been playing fast and lose with the truth about The Sussex’s children they have tried to erase Meghan name from Archie birth certificate. Charles and his people were actively looking for ways to stripped the only two biracial children’s of their titles and sending their royal reporters to say that two toddlers had to earn their titles . While William and his kids the moment the Queen was death within seconds all of their titles were updated . The palace has been trying their harder to othering the Sussex’s kids from the moment they were born including to continue lie and say Meghan and Harry were they ones who didn’t want the kids to have the titles when that not the truth at all . Now this on record the Sussex’s children’s are prince and princess and there nothing that Charles and William can do without it looking bad for them .

  20. QuiteContrary says:

    You have to be a little naive to wage a campaign against an entrenched institution — or maybe just wildly optimistic.
    Whatever the case, I look forward to the Chubbly protests and will be tuning in just for those.

    Unless Meghan and Harry attend — then I will be watching how she slays.

  21. alexis says:

    The British are confusing. Two vile women icons, gold diggers, desperate social climbers with very little humanity in their behaviors. There is the stalker nicknamed “The Mattress, Wisteria and Middlebum” who had a desperate need to flash her naked butt during official duties, is incapable of simple public speaking, mumbles and um’s with a total absence of intelligence or personality. Yet she is supposedly a saint and Mother Theresa combined, yet she does absolutely nothing to deserve this adulation. She is excellent at scanning for every camera lens and posing, her narcissism is constantly on show. Excessive spending , wiglets, clothes, shoes, handbags and whatever else she lavishes on herself ,totally tone deaf to the struggling population in the UK. This commoner who now seems to believe she is superior to all others, there is never any evidence of humbleness, compassion or empathy for others. Then we have Charles side piece the vile creature who has been hell bent on destroying anyone who gets in her way for decades. The sickening campaign seemingly financed by the royals to delete her past and elevate her to innocent Queen status is an insult to people everywhere. Charles seems to be ruled by this repulsive person and obeys her every whim. They say ugliness shows in your face, she is a prime example of this. Her insides are showing in her face, vile, evil and viciously nasty, there are very few 75 year old who look as bad as her. Bringing vile, social climbing narcissists into any family, means destruction ,and thats exactly whats happening.

    • Emily_C says:

      You seem to be blaming Chuck and Willy’s — and the entire brf’s — vile behavior on women. People need to stop doing this. “It’s all the evil woman outsider’s fault” is an ancient refrain, and always pure misogyny to deflect from the men who actually hold the power.

      Chuck does what Chuck wants. No one rules him, and he’s always had tantrums whenever anyone tried to even suggest that he do anything differently. Willy’s the same. Do not blame the women for their behavior. They chose those women for a reason, and it’s that they would be doormats for the men.

      • alexis says:

        Not the BRF but the British in general. Women can be monsters too. Enabling two vile narcissistic women and giving them power is what I am referring to, no matter who is doing it. Nether of those women are doormats and never have been, their decades long behavior confirms this. Narcissists are master manipulators and are very adept at portraying themselves as the victim. Feigned victimhood enables the narcissist (male or female) to attack the targeted victims of their vile behavior. Their extraordinary skills at destroying others are very subtle and rarely blatant or loud. Sure there are misognyists, but excusing a woman’s vile destructive behavior because all women are “sweetness and light” is very naive.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Neither Kate nor Camilla is a victim. They make their choices and are not pawns of the men in their lives. They are also massive enablers of the negative behavior of those men, so yes they hold some responsibility and blame here.

    • HamsterJam says:

      I find the term “social climbing” offensive. It has at its premise the idea that you have no agency in your own life.

  22. Serenity says:

    I have a dream that every protester from now on wears a Burger King crown. ALL of them. I would pay money to help this happen!!! Curious as to what the police could do about it…🤣 And what the palace response would be…😉