Queen Camilla Bursts Into Tears as King Charles References Mortality Amid Cancer Treatment

I honestly didn't think she was capable of crying.

She always seems so cold and unbothered and completely emotionless.

This was a bit of a surprise.

Aww he must only have a few months left. King William…ughhhh

I really think his cancer is terminal. The usually tough Camilla cried and he hopes to "survive" to make another visit.

They'll never admit that he is so ill but it seems obvious.

R3 yep. Death is the one thing we all have in common. It doesn’t matter if you from the projects in Harlem, Beverly Hills we are all going to die and most likely before the age of 100. Our time here is so finite. Cherish it.

Yawn. Let them work for a day

Amazing insight R4, apart from Charles living in neither Harlem nor Beverly Hills - those being locations in New York City and Los Angeles, USA - cities in another country than the UK.

But thanks for your input, I guess.

I'm really surprised to see this. I don't think Camilla is unemotional -- she comes off as pretty jovial and has a good sense of humor, but royals are usually pretty well steeled in public appearances.

Man that's just so sad. I wish they had a decade at least together. Sad.

Camilla, you in danger, girl.

[quote] Man that's just so sad. I wish they had a decade at least together. Sad.

They've been together for many decades. Not sad.

[quote][R3] yep. Death is the one thing we all have in common. It doesn’t matter if you from the projects in Harlem, Beverly Hills we are all going to die and most likely before the age of 100. Our time here is so finite. Cherish it.

Every man dies, but not every man really lives.

[quote]royals are usually pretty well steeled in public appearances.

Yes, it's always "stiff upper lip." Poor Camilla.

They've been married for almost two decades (since 2005) and were doing tampon string cosplay for years before that.

The old whores got light-years more than most of us get.

I'd cry too if I knew I'd be losing the Crown Jewels pretty soon.

Cheap sentiment to hang onto the last vestiges of empire.

He is probably still sick then. I wonder how he's had the strength to do this tour? I read yesterday that Willian extended an olive branch to Harry in some way ) I didn't read the article). They've loved each other for a long time and I really thought the family would accept her enough for them to marry. I'm glad they have had those years together. I've never heard of her crying in public before. Kind of sad to read that this morning.

R14 she doesn’t just pop on the Crown Jewels when she’s feeling like a bit of a glow up before heading up to Kensington High Street.

[quote]Why do Americans feel the need to contribute to these discussions?

Well, this is the Datalounge, r17.

Anyone, from anywhere may feel free to contribute to any subject of their choice.

I’ve been here for over a decade but that doesn’t mean that I don’t continue to be amazed at the American capacity to assume expert knowledge on a subject about which you know so little. It’s what you do, right, R18?

Her crying in public is pretty significant. I guess it means his cancer is terminal. That he’s still carrying on is important to his legacy. Royalists loved the queen for beings there their entire life and that feeling didn’t automatically shift to Charles. But if he’s still on the job knowing he doesn’t have much time left, that will endear him to people who follow the BRF. I think it also ties in with Kate still in seclusion. She’s recovering from her cancer (I hope!) and they know that soon William will ascend and their lives will be non-stop busy so she’s taking advantage of this lull to be with the kids.

These threads are always so hilarious. The idea that the Crown Jewels somehow belong to Camilla is so ridiculous.

How do you Americans spend so much time discussing the Royal Family and British culture yet always get it so wrong?

[quote]they know that soon William will ascend and their lives will be non-stop busy

And George will be one step closer to the Tower of London.

We see you Charlotte.

Hopefully the horse-faced cunt dies with him.

I saw them in person on this recent tour. She clung to him tightly going downstairs, but we weren't sure whether it was because she felt shaky or because she was worried he might be.

Why do older celebrities seem to think they need to spurn the bannister rail going up and downstairs? Has some marketing idiot told them it makes them look stronger to spurn it? Because it's moronic. Everyone (who isn't constantly athletic) loses balance gradually as they get older, never mind whether they have other things wrong with them. I noticed the same thing when Biden was inaugurated. He walked up and down myriad stairs inside and outside the Capitol and was never within grabbing distance of the bannister. Crazyness.

[quote]How do you Americans spend so much time discussing the Royal Family and British culture yet always get it so wrong?

I figure it's kinda like discussing something really stupid which we know doesn't really matter much.

Correct, R26--it's all so pointless and stupid. And isn't it amusing that Brits here get their panties in a twist when some American makes an off-hand, glib remark about the Crown Jewels or some such ridiculous thing. And then they act as if it's something an American SHOULD know about--as if it matters.

[R17] [R19] [R21] Maybe [R14] meant the OTHER crown jewels. You know, the ones attached to her ailing husband? Anyway it could also just be short-hand for the entire Queen thing. No need to get bent out of shape. What a waste of your time to wig out about such a throwaway comment.

I will say, however, that anyone who actually knows anything whatsoever about Camilla, knows that she doesn't care two fucks about the pomp or the perks. She never sought out the Queendom. She is tolerating being the Queen for the sake of the love of her life. She prefers the simple life: her horses, her gardening, her books, her privacy. She's very down to earth and I bet the only thing she'll be happy about once her beloved Charles passes is not being the Queen anymore. Crown jewels, crown shcmewels.

She knows she will be turned out when he dies.

Oh, brother, R29--who's going to turn her out and from where will she be turned out? Spoiler alert: she'll be just fine.

R29 She doesn't give a shit. She has her wonderful home in the country to return to, which I am sure she misses every day of her tiring life as Queen.

She’s crying because she knows that when he dies, William will kick her to the curb.

[quote] Spoiler alert: she'll be just fine.

She knows she won’t be fine after she’s turned out, or at least not as fine as she is now.

R32 That would never happen. We're not living in Tudor times. She's not being sent to a nunnery.

Camilla had a wonderful, comfortable life before she married Charles.

She will have that again, after he's gone.

I have a feeling that she'll live to be 100.

[quote] She's not being sent to a nunnery.

I don’t think think they would have her. She’ll face banishment and suffer that.

I'm no fan of the BRF, but you have to feel for a guy who waited patiently his entire adult life to be king, finally attain it, then know his reign will be a small fraction of his mother's in duration.

she was crying because her tight panties snapped and her pussy lips got snagged and dragged up into her asshole.

God Bless the King and Queen.

People thinking that Camilla's prime objective was to ascend the throne really have no clue. Her life was wonderful, she didn't want any of this. She is a relaxed laidback countrywoman, not ambitious. This whole Queen thing, she's doing out of love and devotion to Charles, and for no other reason than that. When he passes and her time as Queen is over, she is going to retreat to her country manse and live out her days drinking gin and putter in the garden while her her great-grandchildren play.

I think Camilla puts a lot of store in being the queen. Her family put a lot in store for being descendants of Alice Keppel and Camilla views herself as having grabbed the brass ring for the family. She is a piece of work who wore white to Charles and Diana's wedding. (With The Queen repaid by wearing white to Charles and Camilla's wedding).I don't know why she flies under the radar for so many people. Maybe her age. Her PR after The Queen died was insane. Multiple puff pieces every week ranging from "Queen Camilla is a Gen Z style icon" to getting her friends to trash the Wales. She didn't even ratchet it down a level after Charles was diagnosed. She only did it when there was such a huge backlash to "Where's Kate".

This woman released PR stating her friends and family's nickname for her is Lorraine (get it, La Reine?). She could have remained styled as a Duchess and no one would have cared. She definitely wanted to be queen.

She didn’t wear white to Charles’s wedding to Diana, R42. Why make stuff up? There are pictures of her in a grey suit with matching pillbox hat.

[quote] She didn’t wear white to Charles’s wedding to Diana, [R42]. Why make stuff up? There are pictures of her in a grey suit with matching pillbox hat.

But what was she wearing underneath?

It's so sad. Im sure the king will return all the freebees provided by the British public to the people to celebrate his passing. Each Brit gets a check for 700 pounds and commemorative astray and matching box of matches with the royal crest emblazon.

I saw this tweet/video of the incident on Twitter the other day. Not sure if anyone else saw similar tweets.

It wasn't until days later I saw this DL thread with the explanation that she was actually in tears and trying to cover her face with the hand held fan.

I'm not a fan of hers but this whole episode makes me feel quite sad for her. She obviously loves him deeply. Charles looks terrible in the images at OP's link. He doesn't look well at all.

R42 The Queen didn't even go Charles and Camilla's wedding, ya goofus.

"Pale grey" my ass. That's the palest grey I have ever seen. It was particularly tacky given everyone in those circles knew who she was to Charles.

Pardon me, she was at the reception.

R49 is correct. The Queen didn't attend their wedding.

"Given the monarch’s prominent role in the religion, it’s thought she made the tough decision to uphold the COE's values by not attending the couple's civil ceremony at Windsor Guildhall on 9 April 2005. However, she and Prince Philip later hosted a wedding reception for the newlyweds at Windsor Castle and took part in a religious blessing at St George's Chapel, a clear sign that they approved of the pair's nuptials, according to some insiders".

This trip really puts into context how utterly absurd the notion of the monarchy is today.

She’s upset about losing her tampon.

[quote] I'm no fan of the BRF, but you have to feel for a guy who waited patiently his entire adult life to be king

No, I don’t.

When is the last time we had a King with such a short reign? Camila’s public tears are very telling. I doubt he has even a year. I really like the royal monarch including the King.

R53 Why is it absurd. They bring a lot of attention to world issues and the Brits seem to love it as an iconic cultural thing. Are you British?

That is sooo funnneee R54!

[quote] This trip really puts into context how utterly absurd the notion of the monarchy is today.

The part where you provide support this positon failed to post. Maybe you should repost?

R57, fuck off. No they don’t.

R60 Well can you at least answer the question you immature cunt. Are you British?

Queen Consort, you bitch OP.

She's crying because her short time as a do nothing queen is almost over.

I doubt that Cunard will ever name a ship after her.

Unless it’s a horse/livestock carrier. 🐄 🐎

Oh, well. As they say: too bad, so sad, never mind. He's led a life of extreme luxury at everybody else's expense, has contributed nothing to society and is an entitled, pompous, arrogant fool. There are people who have worked hard their entire lives and yet, they're dying in the streets. I don't see why we should care about Charles' death when others are much more deserving of our compassion.

R63 is right. She is probably worried that once the useless Mummy's Boy dies, she will not be able to live in the grandest style imaginable at the taxpayers' expense. Isn't that too bad? I'm sure she'll be OK, as he will have made provisions to bequeath part of his personal £2 billion fortune to her, and she won't have to pay any inheritance tax on it.

[quote] anyone who actually knows anything whatsoever about Camilla, knows that she doesn't care two fucks about the pomp or the perks. She never sought out the Queendom.

Yeah, right.

I think Charles and Kate are both terminal and it's being kept secret.

He allegedly has pancreatic cancer.

Some are saying succession should go to Harry since upon taking the throne he would also be dealing with a sickly terminal wife after just losing father from the same disease.

The Queendom?

Uh, no.

R65 You are insane. You for sure are not British and have no sense of British royal history. Camilla could not give two fucks about living in luxury. She hung out with horses and dogs, planting flowers and veggies in the dirt in the country for decades. She is not precious.

You are an embarrassment.

I don't think Kate is terminal, R67.

R65 is correct except that Charles does appear to have had a beneficial effect on modern British architecture, so there’s that.

R71 is on Horsemilla’s PR team.

[quote] Camilla could not give two fucks about living in luxury. She hung out with horses and dogs, planting flowers and veggies in the dirt in the country for decades.

Only rich people own horses just for fun. After all of this outdoorsy, "dirty work," she had a number of servants to help her get clean, etc. She also had a number of residences to get away.

This is ridiculous to talk like she just wants her hands in the dirt.

[quote] He's led a life of extreme luxury at everybody else's expense, has contributed nothing to society and is an entitled, pompous, arrogant fool. There

Have you heard of the Prince’s Trust? He’s also spent decades representing his country pretty effectively. Do you have similar contempt for elected heads of states who perform essentially the same functions?

Obviously, he has had far from the worst life. On the other hand, I’m very glad I wasn’t born into his existence.

The idea that King Charles, as Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales for like 50 years, "has contributed nothing to society" is utterly insane and demonstrably false. People who talk like that almost without exception are the ones have contributed less than nothing to the world, and are projecting how impotent, ineffectual and selfish they are onto others of a higher status/higher performing/answering a high calling.

"The Prince's Trust, now known as The King's Trust, has helped millions of young people and made a significant impact on society:

Impact on society: According to a research project, The Prince's Trust has created £1.4 billion in value to society over the last 10 years.

Number of young people helped: The Prince's Trust has helped over one million young people. Young people supported in 2021/22: The Prince's Trust supported 60,046 young people in 2021/22.

Young people helped to move into work, education, or training: Three in four young people supported by The Prince's Trust over the last five years have moved into work, education, or training.

Support offered: The Prince's Trust offers a range of support, including grants, courses, qualifications, business support, and mentoring.

Partnerships: The Prince's Trust has over 800 operational and strategic partners, including schools, the police service, and the fire service. "

It really is a kind of hell. His life was determined from the moment he was born. Even if he wanted to be anything else, a doctor, a lawyer, a teacher, it was impossible.

R78 I feel his pain.

I don't much care for the BRF nor am I dazzled by celebrities.

But as I have said before, it does seem like a bit of a bummer that a man who waited his whole life to do what he was born to do gets hit with cancer so soon after it happens.

But you get to choose your destiny Darfur orphan. It's like only having rock soup for the rest of your life. What if you want a juicy plate of flies?

Yes, R76 and R78 have it correct. Charles childhood was rough, he hardly saw his parents. He was sent to really intense boarding schools where he was mercilessly bullied. He had his life mapped out for him. Scrutinized relentlessly. His dad was brutally hard on him. His mother was remote. He was forced to enter the navy. He was forced marry Diana. Forced to wear hose on television at age 21 and get consecrated as Prince of Wales which embarrassed him to no end (which is why William didn't have to do it).

Somehow, in spite of all of this, Charles managed to develop many passions, hobbies, skillsets and projects. He's been on the forefront of the ecological movement since the 70s. He started the Prince's Trust which helps millions of youth get a start in life. He created Highgrove Gardens and educates people on organic gardening. He loves architecture and has created/designed a freaking city from scratch. He is a remarkable person. He gets shit on constantly. He never stops working.

They only critique I have of the BRF as a whole is, please auction off some of hour antiques and liquidate those meaningless frozen assets and create an even stronger Food Bank and Heat Bank with the money. No one should starve to death or die of hypothermia in their own apartment in the wintertime.

R81 We don’t have many options. President Trumpamuhadah said illegals have eaten all the flies.

R82 "consecrated"? Are you fucking kidding me?

What planet are you living on?

Drunk again,Camilla?

I wonder if Camilla drinks Gordon's gin, like QE and that guy did, the guy who died with his "legs up in the air."

The imbeciles who are abjectly defending Charles and the BRF are pathetic, and are afflicted by Grateful Serf Mentality. The Prince's Trust receives most of its funding from governments grants and private donations - the BRF don't give a penny to that charity, so it's not as if they were sacrificing anything to help others beyond putting their name on a charity. They operate exactly like every other NGO, so quit pretending that they're doing anything extraordinary; especially if you take into account that the BRF could house all the homeless people in Britain in some of their vast and luxurious properties, and don't do so at all even though they'd still have plenty of places in which to live in luxury. Just look at the figures for the Prince's Trust and stop parroting the nonsense that The Sun and the Daily Fail promote.

As for Charles, he has lives in the very pinnacle of privilege since birth, and if the price he has had to pay was not getting as much love and attention as he would have liked, then that's too bad. There is a price to pay for power and wealth, and not getting exactly what you want, when and how you want it, doesn't seem to bad when you take into account the magnitude of the advantages that the BRF enjoy. Pretending that these people are victims in a country where 1 in 4 children live in poverty, homelessness is soaring and we're facing a devastating economic depression, is beyond preposterous.

R87 Honestly, I've always been a royal watcher but I can't argue with you. If I had billions of pounds I am pretty sure, knowing myself, that I would want to distribute it out and create a wonderland of good safe homes, food for all, and every decent thing. I could never be happy hoarding wealth. It gives me zero joy to have more than others, while others go without. It's only good when everyone has what they need.

I wonder if he will have some sort of coffin-less eco-burial in the garden at Highgrove.

What’s on Diana’s iPod in the hereafter?

So - when he dies, who will be the five working royals? William, his wife and...??? Princess Anne and Prince Edward? Andrew and Harry are out.

The kids are too young. Princess Beatrix? That's scraping the barrel. Do you think they'll allow Camilla to fill a role? I can't see that for some reason.

Did I get that wrong from somewhere? Embarrassingly, I think I got the idea of 5 primary working royals from The Crown - which is why Princess Margaret wasn't given more duties.

Dear Christ, you're dim.

R91 What the fuck are you talking about? At no point in history has there ever been a policy of "only five working royals". Who is "Princess Beatrix"?

You're right to be embarrassed. You're a complete idiot.

R91 what a clever idea drafting Princess Beatrix into the British Royal Family! I’m sure that the Dutch would be pleased to see their former queen put to work again.

R92 and r93 are charming and lovely. Such assets to the DL!

You Brits with your tight panties are just too entertaining. Carry on you silly twats!

Maybe the new king could make someone a duke and then bring them into the royal family to work.

You forgot “intelligent” and “know what they are talking about” R95.

R96 not nearly as entertaining as the American posters who have no idea on the subject but of course want to share their stupidity with the rest of us.

My pussy REALLY stinks.

As awful as they were, I don't think I've ever laughed as much as when someone on a royal thread started a sentence with "When Meghan is Queen..."

Drama whore...er...queen.

[wuote] As for Charles, he has lives in the very pinnacle of privilege since birth, and if the price he has had to pay was not getting as much love and attention as he would have liked, then that's too bad. There is a price to pay for power and wealth, and not getting exactly what you want, when and how you want it, doesn't seem to bad when you take into account the magnitude of the advantages

What you say is quite reasonable to say about someone who chooses a life in the public eye. You seem to be unaware of the fact that Charles was born into that positon and had very little option of avoiding it. Once you acknowledge that fact, what you are saying makes you seem like quite a bit of a dick.

Is he the worst-off person in society? No. Would almost any of us dread being born intohis positon? Absolutely. And if you say otherwise you’re just being an idiot.

Whoever paid for the Prince’s Trust, he’s the one who made it happen and no one else was doing it.

Sad last days - mostly for Camilla. Seems like Charles has accepted his fate.

R103 Charles used his navy severance pay to found the Prince's Trust.

R105 We don't use the phrase "severance pay" in the UK, so maybe you could elaborate?

R87 the Amerikkkan Anglophiles are even worse. There's nothing worse than an American who latches on to another culture and tries to be a sexual intellectual about it.

Sexual Intellectual = a fucking know it all.

Citizens of the UK owe allegiance to the king, but none to Camilla when Charles dies. The people will not come to her aid.

R106 perhaps you had better tell the King that he got it wrong re using the term “severance pay” - my source was the King’s Trust website (see below FYI).

All the best!

"I hope that I survive long enough to come back again" certainly sounds like a pointed remark, given Charles's cancer diagnosis. He must have known that that comment would spark speculation about his health.

Possibly - or maybe he was just referring to his age and the fact that state visits are pretty rare - his mother only visited Western Samoa once in her 70 year reign. He just visited Australia - given the distances involved, his age and his illness I’d say that it’s highly unlikely that he will be back.

Happy to be proven wrong some day!

True love

[quote]not nearly as entertaining as the American posters who have no idea on the subject but of course want to share their stupidity with the rest of us.

I give you UK immigrant Milky Loads Andrew Sullivan who seems to have an opinion on everything and yet nothing about America. Checkmate.

R111 - yeah, I did wonder if he was just referring to the infrequency of the visits to Australia/Samoa and his age. But it does seem like an odd thing to say publicly when there's so much speculation about his prognosis.

r113 and also John Oliver, who shits on the US constantly, but doesn't mind the fact that the US made him a millionaire, something he never would've achieved in his native UK.

She's crying because when he goes, it's will only be days before they snatch her trophy, uh, I mean crown and send her off the the glue factory.

R116 Sober up, honey.

That comment R117 should be directed to your horse Queen.

[quote] Citizens of the UK owe allegiance to the king, but none to Camilla when Charles dies. The people will not come to her aid.

What aid do you think she will need, exactly? She has been a member of the upper classes since birth, is now in her mid-seventies and has her own extremely comfortable (and expensive) home in Gloucestershire which she seems to prefer to all the palaces and castles at her disposal. She goes back there at every opportunity.

I know the British monarchy brings out an adorable dramatic streak in the habitués of D/L, but Camilla is not destined to be cast out into the streets by a vengeful William and Harry, as the King’s Guard burn her in effigy in Whitehall. She is not a character in a Puccini opera or a Victorian melodrama. She is too much of a survivor to play that kind of role.

The very worse that awaits her is to be sidelined after William accedes to the throne, in which case she will be free to retreat to the home she loves and spend her eighties in wealth and comfort surrounded by her own children and grandchildren

It's funny how some of you immediately (and mistakenly) assume that if somebody disagrees with you on these threads that they are British.

[quote]Citizens of the UK owe allegiance to the king, but none to Camilla when Charles dies. The people will not come to her aid.

Maybe Harry and Meghan will do the noble gesture and take her into their home. They can get rid of the nanny and put her in charge of the kids. They will save a shitload of money by making her earn her keep.

I'm not British but I always loved the Queen - I think she reminded me of my own grandmother, who wore pearls and carried her handbag even when we went to the beach.

So Prince Charles and I sort of grew up at the same time, he's always just been around. I felt bad when the Queen died, and I'll feel bad when Charles dies.

If that makes me an asshole, them so be it.

Then ^^^^^

[quote]I felt bad when the Queen died, and I'll feel bad when Charles dies.

Of course. People should never lose sight of the fact that Meghan is the villain in the BRF story, and Charles has certainly been one of her victims. He deserves sympathy.

R124 I wasn't even thinking of Megan Markle.

I saw the clip OP’s article is referring to and it looked much more likely that Camilla was laughing. She used her fan to hide her face, but was obviously talking to the people in the row behind her. Unless she has suddenly developed the habit of weeping to officials in public, I think she has just learned to cover her face when saying anything private, because otherwise the UK press has lip-readers who try to work out what she is saying.

Camilla is the definition of a tough old bird. She spent decades being reviled in the press daily and being screamed at by random strangers on the street, and I can’t remember one instance of her weeping. I doubt she is going to start now.

Thank you, R126, for the injection of some sanity into the discussion.

There is a subset of posters who are absolutely fucking gagging for another royal funeral. Diana's was the hallmark, Philip's was too small (Covid) and Elizabeth II's didn't have enough mass wailing, flower leaving and general hysteria as she was 96 FFS.

Of course what they really yearn for is Kate's ("so young", "so beautiful" "those dear little children", "Candle in the Wind" etc) so they'll take Charles's for now while they continue the Kate death watch.

Sadly for them Kate has looked better each time that she's appeared in public. Must be those secret visits to the Houston Cancer Hospital. Plus lace-front wigs and Indian extensions.

CORRECTION: Camilla is the definition of a tough old mare., tough old mare. 🐴🥕🥕

Camilla loves Charles, of course she would cry.

Why didn’t he just marry her from the jump. He was creeping with her throughout their entire marriage, even before they say. Sad.

Homewrecker Karma

[quote] Homewrecker Karma

Is that what got Princess Diana too?

R132 = Gaslighting again. Changes nothing, Camilla was still a homewrecker.

It would be interesting if William became king, because:

1) Charles's funeral would be sadder than the queen's, since he didn't rule for very long.

2) it would be fascinating to see what William decides to do with Harry and Meghan, and Andrew and Fergie. (There's not much question of what will happen to Camilla, even if Dataloungers pretend otherwise--she will be allowed to retire in great style since I am sure she is extremely well provided for in Charles's will.)

3) Kate would get to wear all the great tiaras and pieces of jewelry Camilla gets to wear now. (In fact, Camilla has held off still wearing some of the most famous royal pieces like the Grand Vladimir Tiara with the big emeralds.)

4) George would become Prince of Wales.

Still, I very much hope Charles gets to be king for a few more years at least since he waited so long for it.

Charles shouldn't have gone along with an arranged marriage. Diana was young, she had that as an excuse.

R134 yea I agree. I like him. He seems very down to earth in interviews, you know, for someone from his background. My mom is a big royalist conspiracy theorist and thinks Diana was murdered, smh but I like the King.

I don't think Charles' funeral will be sadder than Queen Elizabeth's. She was more beloved, IMO.

It is crazy to think that George would become the POW. He's so young.

Will Charlotte get anything (titles, etc.) when Charles dies?

[quote] Camilla has held off still wearing some of the most famous royal pieces like the Grand Vladimir Tiara with the big emeralds

I had to Google this.

That's some pretty amazing jewelry!

And you're right. They're huge!

Yikes, that's a lot of huge emeralds. The earrings get lost in the mix.

I think Charles’ funeral will be a non-event. Even the BBC will be running old Poirot reruns.

[quote] Gaslighting again. Changes nothing, Camilla was still a homewrecker

R133, “gaslighting” would suggest that I said something that was not true, which is not the case.

If Camilla is defined as a homewrecker (your pearl-clutching, church-lady term), then so is Diana.

[quote] Charles shouldn't have gone along with an arranged marriage. Diana was young, she had that as an excuse.

Diana was a fine person in many ways, and made a great, positive impact in public life, but she was still fucking married men when she was in her thirties. She was old enough to know the consequences of that choice.

Oh for fuck's sake - some of you old nannas really need to get a grip. Diana (a "homewrecker" herself) has been dead for 27 years. Camilla (also a "homewrecker" married to two homewreckers in succession) has apparently been happily married to Charles - another ("homewrecker") - for nearly twenty years - longer than Charles and Diana were married.

Life is messy. People don't always marry the right person - in fact, they often don't.

Out of all that, Charles and Camilla seem happily married in their twilight years, Princess Anne (ex-girlfriend of Camilla's ex Andrew P-B) and Tim Laurence seem happy enough, Anne's ex Mark Philiips is happily ensconced on Anne's estate with his latest wife or girlfriend and Andrew P-B was happily married to his next wife who sadly died and they all seem to get on quite well, which is the way of the British aristocracy.

That's how the British aristocracy has always operated - it's when some of you try and impose your American suburban curtain-twitching values on a foreign culture that you get yourselves in a state.

The Vladimir tiara is the one Meghan wanted to wear on her wedding day.

R106 do let us know when you've had a response from the King's Trust regarding their incorrect use of the King's English in using the words "Navy severance pay" - I know how particular you are regarding these very important things.

R99, stiff upper lip dearie.

Ooo I said stiff!

Cry me a river. She's probably just drunk again. She's made a complete ass of herself on this tour, being her usual selfish self. You'd think her ass was the one with cancer the way she's been acting. Camilla is tourching Liz's legacy and rules for royal conduct. Just bringing trailer park energy into the role.

Has Beatrice commented yet?

“Liz”? “Trailer park?

Why do you Americans think that what you think matters, R147?

[quote] Will Charlotte get anything (titles, etc.) when Charles dies?

R137 Princess Anne is the Princess Royal, and there can only be one. But iirc Charlotte will inherit that title when Anne dies. I don't know if she'll get any duchies or whatever, like George will be PoW I think - not sure about Charlotte or Louis.

Ahh, Camilla you’ll always be just a whore to me. Camilla Park’n Ride.

That palace has been CURSED since they killed of Princess Diana.

Think about it, dead queen, split family, cancer outbreak, bald heads.

R143- My American suburban values also feel that titles and the entire Royal family is all rubbish and should have been phased out right after World War One.

Yes, the queen dying at age 96 was obviously because of a curse.

Poor Charles won’t live nearly as long as his parents.

So the whole 70 year reign of beloved QEII was just an aberration, R153? Fuck right off. Queen Elizabeth II created the Commonwealth. She was monumentally influential throughout the majority of the 20th century. I can't imagine a world where she didn't exist and I wouldn't want to. She was also very frugal and humble, and although she lived amongst luxury, she didn't every exploit it and she always said "I don't own any of this, I only own my name."

Anyway, the BRF are worth billions economically to the United Kingdom. How is this not clear?

The Rottweiler Queen was ugly crying. Probably too much gin at lunch.

The British Royal Family is the equivalent of the same worship in America for the Kardashians.😂

[quote][R137] Princess Anne is the Princess Royal, and there can only be one. But iirc Charlotte will inherit that title when Anne dies.

She can inherit if William is king when Anne dies (or when he becomes king after Anne does), but she won't get it automatically. Anne had to wait 22 years to be made Princess Royal--the previous holder of the title, Princess Mary, died in 1965, and Anne was not made Princess Royal until 1987.

It's considered a somewhat outdated title, and I think they thought about doing away with it, but Anne was ultimately given it in recognition of the fact that she was so hard-working and had done so much service for the Crown.

[quote] My American suburban values also feel that titles and the entire Royal family is all rubbish and should have been phased out right after World War One.

Americans found out that they didn’t need a monarchy. After Charles I was deposed, the English found that the lack of a monarch didn’t work for them, so they realize that they’ll always need to keep the monarchy. It’s a big difference in what our two cultures are capable of.

[quote] That palace has been CURSED since they killed of Princess Diana.

[quote] Think about it, dead queen, split family, cancer outbreak, bald heads.

Lol.

Going bald is a curse?

[quote] Going bald is a curse?

Well, there’s no sign that they enjoy it.

If you were going bald as a young man yes, most would consider it a curse.😂

Hair transplants are a billion dollar industry for a reason.

[quote] Yes, the queen dying at age 96 was obviously because of a curse.

Prince Phillip died at age 99. Also part of this curse.

And Charles is coming up about 20 years short of that, he will be dead by the end of the year. CURSED!

If karma was coming to find the BRF after Diana's death it certainly took its time getting to the job at hand.

It’s not about the length of life; it’s the quality of life.

[quote] It’s not about the length of life; it’s the quality of life.

You forgot to sign off as ...

R71 Somewhat might define luxury as having enough money to wake up every day and do whatever the fuck you want.

[quote]It's considered a somewhat outdated title, and I think they thought about doing away with it,

They shouldn't get rid of it. "The Princess Royal" is a fierce title.

For R106 - the OED defines “severance pay” as:

noun: an amount paid to an employee on the early termination of a contract.

If it’s good enough for the King and for the Oxford English Dictionary it’s hopefully good enough for you.

Is it true that upon hearing of Diana's death the first words from the Queen's mouth went something to the effect, "Was she wearing any of the jewels?"... Well, what say ye?

R172 This has to be the most stupid thing I've ever read on these threads.

R172 do you seriously think that Diana, who had no access to them even while married, was tooling around Paris in white jeans and a black T-shirt, wearing the Crown Jewels?

What say I? You’re a simpleton.

Is it any wonder that Americans on these threads get laughed off for being so stupid?

R174 I heard she had the orb and sceptre in her handbag.

R175, No, it was the Cullinan l Diamond which she had pried out of the sceptre. It looked marvelous with her white jeans and against a black t-shirt.

Wow. Will Baby Boomers be left holding the shortest generational Royal reign in modern history?

Millennial King William will have a very very long reign in comparison.

You Brits are so easy to rile. I'm almost embarrassed for you.

It's almost like the British monarchy title went directly from the QEII and the Greatest Generation directly to the Millennials. How sad for the Boomers and Gen X.

“Easy to rile”, R378? You were the poster who said that Camilla would lose the Crown Jewels when Charles dies.

If anyone should be embarrassed, R378 - it’s you. Maybe stick to the Golden Girls threads in future.

^^^ make that R178

And just to add R178 - how very American of you to assume that somebody who points out your stupidity is a “Brit”.

I’m not.

[quote] King Charles' Medical Team Is Reportedly Worried He Skipped Cancer Treatment During Royal Tour

King Charles recently completed a royal tour of Australia and Samoa alongside his wife, Queen Camilla. For the international trip, Charles was required to pause his cancer treatment, although he reportedly traveled with two doctors. Now, a new report suggests that the King's medical team is worried that the monarch went without treatment for almost two weeks.

"[T]here's concern among the King's medical team after an anonymous palace briefing that he will be returning to a full programme of overseas tours in 2025," the Daily Mail reported.

The article further explained, "Having skipped his cancer treatment regime to make the latest tour—and with no one certain how his body has coped—it was planned that he would take time off on his return, allowing him to recover and for doctors to carry out a full assessment of his wellbeing."

Instead of taking any time off, King Charles appears to have launched right into making plans for 2025.

r179 we really don't care.

The king is sacrificing himself for his subjects.

R184 The word "subjects" hasn't been used in decades.

R184 You've been swindled.

Charles is hardly working himself to the bone if he is merely planning his schedule for next year. It’s just a positive sign that he is feeling well and optimistic. If he had pancreatic can er, for example, I doubt he would be making plans for next summer.

It’s also being reported that he and Camilla stopped off at a very fancy spa in India for a few days to break up the trip home from the Commonwealth Heads of Government summit. He wouldn’t be doing that if his doctors were urging him back for urgent treatment.

You know whats stupider than Americans who know nothing about the Monarchy? Brits who give them all their money.

R188 Who gave the Royals all their money?

Don't be cute r189, you know the meaning behind that. Yes they did not give them all their money, but they do fund them millions of dollars through government. Money that could go to the people. Heck, even if they didn't get a dime, if you liquidated the vast amount of wealth of the monarchy, the UK would be a lot better off.

R190 The Sovereign Grant is about £86m annually (we don't have dollars in the UK). That's about a pound per person (we don't have dimes either). That figure is a drop in the ocean in our economy.

R191 there is absolutely no point in trying to educate Americans with facts because, as always, Americans know better.

Even when they don’t.

R191 blatantly ignores the bigger point if they liquidated all the property the Royals have, it would be billions of dollars.

They've been girlfriends their whole lives.

R193 I’m not quite sure who you think “The Royals” are, but if you’re referring to the present monarch - he owns Balmoral Castle and Sandringham House. Both hefty properties if he wanted to offload them - although who could afford them? They are quite grand although what’s the point of being a fucking King if you can’t have a couple of castles?

If you’re referring to Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle or the Palace of Holyrood House in Edinburgh (a city in Scotland FYI) - they aren’t his to liquidate. They belong to the Crown Estates - held in trust for future generations. The monarch just gets to live in them. Which is rather nice for Windsor and Holyrood, less so for Buckingham Palace which is a massive white elephant requiring a huge amount of upkeep and which all The Royals (there’s that expression again) have apparently loathed for generations.

Then there is Highgrove house in Gloucestershire which is now owned by the Prince of Wales so that The King is his son’s tenant, and a number of smaller properties (Castle of Mey in Scotland. A couple of hard to spell places in Wales which now belong to William, a place in Northern Ireland which the King as Prince of Wales bought and restored. I guess he could sell those off or get some tenants in which would make not even a tiny difference to the finances of the UK or t the number of homeless therein.

It’s sweet that you have an interest these things and I do understand that “as an American” you feel that your thoughts on the subject carry a lot of weight, but it does help to get your facts straight first and not just sound off on a subject about which you know very little.

R193 - just a little reminder - the currency in the UK is not the dollar.

I imagine that this may come as a shock to you - other “countries” have other “currencies”.

Tell me that you’re American without saying that you’re American.

R193 just suppose that the UK dispensed with the Monarchy - the former monarch would still have private ownership of Balmoral and Sandringham and a few other properties and would have a lovely time up north drinking champagne and eating kedgiree.

The Crown Estates would be up to the new Republic of England to dispose of as they see fit.

How do you see that working? Are you picturing a Ritz Carlton Buckingham Palace and Spa? The Windsor Castle luxury getaway villas and wedding venue?

I’d love to hear your very informed “as an American” thoughts.

[quote] Both hefty properties if he wanted to offload them - although who could afford them?

Elon Musk? Won't you please take him off our hands?

He's from South Africa, in your Commonwealth I think? I mean, it's only fitting.

Im not British, R198 - it’s not my Commonwealth - but I do understand why you would say that.

Please don’t assume that anybody on here with a contrary view is.

If you dispensed with the royalty, then dying drunk with your legs in the air wouldn’t be as glamorous.

All I know is the Brits should be happy anyone is talking about them at all. From what I hear they’ve really backed themselves into a corner after leaving the EU - An island with not enough trade agreements in place to support the basic needs of its civilians without prices going through the roof - isolating itself from the world. The county’s racist idiot contention really got the best of them.

No wonder they cling to and defend within an inch of its life the only thing that defines any national identity - the monarchy. It’s a continual reminder of better times of when they were important. Guess what, no one else cares about it outside of gossip and entertainment.

It’s sad the Monarchy is the only glue that holds a failing nation, a former empire, together. It’s economic power slipping, not even in the top five anymore. California’s economy is larger than England’s. I mean think about it. What IS England without the Monarchy? Nothing really.

[quote] What IS England without the Monarchy? Nothing really.

I think you just won the stupid American sweepstakes.

R201 showing that American stupidity should never be underestimated.

Sometimes it’s best to just shut the fuck up, R201.

Is it arrogance or just basic fucking stupidity that makes some of you so happy share your lack of understanding with the rest of us?

Prove me wrong r202/r203? What do you have? Your great cuisine? Can you name anything good? At least Italy and France have that. Fashion? You have decent designers but no great fashion houses. Music? All your best had to come to America to make it big and half became American themselves. All you really have is a great tradition which you have to cling to. So have at your Monarchy.

It’s not arrogance. It’s not about what America IS. It’s more about what Britain ISN’T, at least not anymore. That’s why I am championing you guys being the experts and the only ones allowed to comment on your monarchy. I mean because what else do you have?

I mean Britain gave up its position as a power player on a geo-political level when he left the EU. Now Germany has taken its place. You never hear “The US president is in close contact with Keir Stammer, Sunak or Truss” to resolve any conflict. You definitely hear Macron, Meloni, Trudeau. And the country is only going to become more isolated. So defend your monarchy even though over half of the working monarchy is geriatric and suffering from cancer. Call us silly and stupid all you want for taking an interest, however uniformed our opinion is. But you’re only shooting yourself in the foot.

England has literally decided to become an island unto itself with not enough resources or trade agreements in place to support its swelling population of immigrants coming form its common wealths. These immigrants used to be able to travel freely to other European countries to find economic opporutinities, but now they are stuck. There are not enough jobs to go around, especially considering a lot of European companies pulled out when it became untenable to maintain branches, employees, in what is now another country and not part of a Union. The cracks from the horrible decision to leave the EU are becoming quite evident. It's something everyone in England already knows and is experiencing. And they will never be allowed back into the EU without huge concessions, like giving up the Pound, which they never had to do - nor will they ever do unless things increasingly become worse and they have to come crawling back. But in this new light, the Monarchy will seem more and more unnecessary and a burden on the people. And the decision England will have to make will be a real catch 22, because again, what else do they have? At some point their Monarchy will be the only thing separating them from Newfoundland. So the Monarchy, which has gone from ruling, to governing to reining will become a Disneyland-esque attraction just to get the tourist money.

^ and Camilla laughing at the locals - not crying over the health of her husband (spin, if I've ever seen it, on a problematic woman to make her seem as if she cares about anyone other than herself) - is not going to help their cause.

[quote] At some point their Monarchy will be the only thing separating them from Newfoundland.

Uh, Newfoundland (as part of Canada) and the UK share the same monarch.

Silly boy at r210. I was comparing people's interest level in a similarly sized island floating in the Atlantic. Funny how that is the one thing you pointed out in everything I said. It must have really resonated with you.

and yet, nowhere do you reference 'people's interest' in your post.

As little as I care for the BRF, I find this touching.

I think she genuinely loves him, regardless of his position.

What she sees in him I couldn't tell you. I may be the sole person here who thinks she way outclasses him as an individual.

These monarch were selected by God, silly. Look at their hats.

Go away Reface Retard. None of these are even mildly amusing.

[quote]I will say, however, that anyone who actually knows anything whatsoever about Camilla, knows that she doesn't care two fucks about the pomp or the perks. She never sought out the Queendom. She is tolerating being the Queen for the sake of the love of her life. She prefers the simple life: her horses, her gardening, her books, her privacy. She's very down to earth and I bet the only thing she'll be happy about once her beloved Charles passes is not being the Queen anymore. Crown jewels, crown shcmewels.

You are SO WRONG. She loves the money.She loves all the perks. She LOVES people curtseying to her. She loves all the servants. She loves it all

You’re intimately acquainted with Queen Camilla, are you, R217? Privy to all her innermost feelings?

Or are you just another pear shaped DL fifty year old shut in who has never left their square state?

I highly respect him for trashing British modern architecture at every opportunity. Why would there be any other reason to discuss it? Just to see photos of its skyline breaks my heart. It was so beautiful when I was very young and went there in the 70s. It was the London of my dreams of course culled from so many movies and culture up to and including the British new wave films of the 60s.

Imagine if this were done to Prague, Paris(although they seem to be slowly working on it)Florence, Venice and Rome? Shakespeare said kill all the lawyers. I say kill all the architects. John Gielgud moved out of it to the country but felt very lucky to have known the London of the early and mid 20th Century. He was philosophical about it, everything changes, but he didn't want to endure it.

I thought Highgrove was privately owned by Charles.

[quote]When is the last time we had a King with such a short reign?

1936. The King before last.

[quote]Wow. Will Baby Boomers be left holding the shortest generational Royal reign in modern history?

No. See above.

Also, the term "modern history". I do not think this means what you think it means.

[quote]and yet, nowhere do you reference 'people's interest' in your post.

R212, didn't the people kind a vote for Brexit? They voted against their own best interests - much as hopefully less than half of America is about to do this Tuesday.

[quote]What IS England without the Monarchy? Nothing really.

England's world-class universities create a commensurate cultural and scientific life and tradition. England is second only to the US in the league of Nobel Prizes. Which is rather more than 'Nothing really.'

Perhaps the US total will rise again, if Donald Trump one day wins the Nobel he so yearns for. Trump has after all captivated the world with his luminous intelligence and statesmanship. He and his devoted followers show a distinctive side of America, long to create attention and influence.

[quote] From what I hear

You really could have left it there and saved yourself the embarrassment.

[quote] they’ve really backed themselves into a corner after leaving the EU - An island with not enough trade agreements in place to support the basic needs of its civilians

Why, yes, we’re positively starving!. Send Hershey’s and tinned cheese, please! I hear that the South Africans will be airlifting snoek in to save us, but every little helps.

You really should be writing on Foreign Affairs for some appropriate journal: the National Enquirer maybe?

I bet you're paying A LOT more for the those Hershey's and tinned cheese right about now R225.

You would have to pay me to eat them, r226.

Now excuse me, I’m off to forage for some nettles seaweed to make a pot of Brexit soup. Pray for me!

[quote] Pray for me!

In your dreams.

R227 is all jokes in his responses. But if he indeed lives in England, he knows exactly what I am talking about. He only plays around exaggerating the truths of what I said, but he doesn't say it isn't true.

R184- He sacrificed himself for his love of alcohol for many years.

[quote] I mean Britain gave up its position as a power player on a geo-political level when he left the EU. Now Germany has taken its place. You never hear “The US president is in close contact with Keir Stammer, Sunak or Truss” to resolve any conflict. You definitely hear Macron, Meloni, Trudeau. And the country is only going to become more isolated.

UN Security Council Member,

highest or second-highest defence spender in Europe (depending on the method of calculation),

A leading defender of the Baltic States as leader of the Joint Expeditionary Force Consisting of the UK, Denmark, Finland, Estonia, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Norway.

Franco-British Joint defence agreement on intensifying military cooperation signed in June 2024

British-German agreement on joint military operations signed last week.

[quote] So defend your monarchy even though over half of the working monarchy is geriatric

Yes, if only the monarrchy had the youthful vigour of President Trump (clearly demented) or President Biden (who I actually think is a fine, distinguished public servant, but as old as the hills). And of course, there is no possible way of the monarchy renewing itself by producing children. Sad, eh!?

[quote] Call us silly and stupid all you want for taking an interest, however uniformed our opinion is. But you’re only shooting yourself in the foot.

Many Americans are better informed on (and certainly more interested in) the monarchy than I am, but I am happy to confirm that you are both (endearingly) silly, and (apparently) stupid.

[quote] In your dreams

😂🤣You’re adorable. R228.

Have a good day.

[quote] 227 is all jokes in his responses. But if he indeed lives in England, he knows exactly what I am talking about. He only plays around exaggerating the truths of what I said, but he doesn't say it isn't true.

Why would I say it wasn’t true? I wouldn’t dare contradict you.

Now excuse me, I need to go chop down the last tree in the garden to generate a little heat during the long cold winter night. Oh, how I miss those pre-Brexit days of food and electricity!

The thought of running the island all on her own obviously terrifies her. How on earth is she supposed to decide what the interest rate should be, for example? She wasn't raised for any of that. Hence the tears.

[quote] It really is a kind of hell. His life was determined from the moment he was born. Even if he wanted to be anything else, a doctor, a lawyer, a teacher, it was impossible.

I feel his pain.

for R231 et al...

[quote]Sterling's sudden collapse and failure to recover proved to be the signal that Britain's best days are fleeting. For most of this century, the UK was the biggest beneficiary among the 27 countries in the EU. Measured by gross domestic product, GDP per capita growth, unemployment and superior debt, equity and currency valuations, Britain was the perennial leader. All of these superlatives ended with “Brexit” almost eight years ago. The EU since then outperforms the UK, whose listless economy is now little more than an also-ran.

[quote]British politicians instead show no hesitation offering prescriptions for the plight of Gaza 3,000 miles away and yet can't be bothered to discuss remedies for the failure to protect vital UK industries such as finance and data while the public increasingly blames rising shop prices, reduced health care and broken public services on the vote to leave the EU.

I wish there were more psychiatrists on DL, particularly around this topic.

[quote] I highly respect him for trashing British modern architecture at every opportunity. Why would there be any other reason to discuss it? Just to see photos of its skyline breaks my heart. It was so beautiful when I was very young and went there in the 70s. It was the London of my dreams of course culled from so many movies and culture up to and including the British new wave films of the 60s.

I don’t like most modern architecture, but the Gherkin is beautiful, even placed in its London setting.

The London (or New York) of anyone’s youth is always gone and it if the rare person who doesn’t prefer the world of their youth to the world of their twilight.

Whenever I see the Gherkin I have this perverse fantasy of sitting on top just to see how much of it would go in.

After Charles' death, ,Camilla should burst into flames as her curse will be broken.

London in the 70s was a complete shithole. No-one who's ever lived in London yearns for that time.

R238, I'll grant you the Gherkin is pretty, but it should have stopped there. One novelty building is enough.

People have been railing against their built environment since Vitruvius. The difference is Vitruvius knew he was talking about.

Even if Chuckle's tastes and ideas weren't regressive, should the “Supreme Governor of the Church of England” be making moral arguments about this? Has God called upon him to quash progress?

[quote]r31 She doesn't give a shit. She has her wonderful home in the country to return to, which I am sure she misses every day of her tiring life as Queen.

Yes, she’ll always have her Blackamoor lamp to keep her warm.

It's cute how R195 is twisting himself into a pretzel while he writes 3 paragraphs detailing the vast wealth the Royals have and how they basically are paupers. 😂

No one cares if the estates are in a trust (for future rich folk) or if it's owned outright. The fact remains if all of that Royal property was liquidated, property, trusts, jewels and all, it would be billions of dollars that could go to help the people in the UK. No excuse with all that money lying around for Pomp and Circumstance while people struggle to pay rent, homeless dying in the streets and living under bridges.

Brexit turned out to be a disaster for Britain, as many of us here predicted. It has its defenders at the time, many of them dupes for Russian propaganda, and we received lots of lectures about how crucial it was for Britain to retain its sovereignty, its national culture, and most importantly, the right to deport all those low-life Polish people who had invaded its borders. I notice that most of those defenders have skulked off. I wonder why?

Although Americans will never understand the notion of hereditary titles and putting up with remnants of the feudal system in 2024, I guess we have nothing to say in the matter, and furthermore, our own electorate is proving to be equally if not more susceptible to blatant propaganda, so we can't gloat.

R246 yet another know all / know nothing American.

Why do you even care? I would have thought that there would be enough going on in your own country to allow you time to obsess over the structure of state and government in another.

Sort yourselves out first - that could take a while.

I know that you think that “as an American” that this gives some kind of imprimatur to your incorrect blatherings, but it doesn’t.

[quote] Although Americans will never understand the notion of hereditary titles and putting up with remnants of the feudal system in 2024

What do Americans not understand about it? It’s not rocket science.

[quote]The fact remains if all of that Royal property was liquidated, property, trusts, jewels and all, it would be billions of dollars that could go to help the people in the UK.

The fact is, most of it already does. And no government, Conservative or Labour, has done it.

Meantime, August 2024: "the British public are still clear in their support of the royalty – six in ten Britons having a positive view of both the family as a whole (63%) and the underlying institution of the monarchy (59%). This is roughly double the number of Britons holding the opposing views..."

[quote] Two-thirds of the British public (65%) believe we should continue to have a monarchy, while a quarter (25%) would favour an elected head of state instead.

It’s good for the UK that on some level a string majority understand that the monarchy is essential to the existence and functioning of the country.

^strong majority

R251 it is not essential to the existence and functioning of the country. You could say it is essential to the moral of the country and it's national identity. But it's not like they are passing legislation or have any judicial power or even any real executive power anymore.

^its

R251,

The UK is what’s known as a crowned republic. The politicians have all the power. The monarchy is merely window dressing.

R242. I believe you but there was not the unrest there then that there is today. Am I right? Maybe I'm not. And I admit I was there as a tourist. But the place was thick with atmosphere and the patina of old grime on the buildings, no ugly as shit skyscrapers and the theater that I've already talked about, Judy Dench, John Mills, Alec Guiness, Robert Morley, Tom Courteny, Albert Finney and I'm sure there were other great actors on the stage that I didn't know about. I didn't know who Judy Dench was, yet I saw her in Much Ado About Nothing.

But I look back with great nostalgia of the New York of the 70s. When there was nobody in midtown! People would avoid it like the plague. Bustling Times Square was a ghost town. Oh but the theater! I had it to myself. It was as Dorothy Fields put it my personal property. Now I'm the one who avoids it like the plague. And there is nothing that I am personally interested in. I certainly can't afford it. But i feel I witnessed the end of the golden age of Broadway. Though I bet the older folks who could have easily been going to the Ziegfeld Follies in their youth did not feel the same way. But they were going to Broadway in its prime.

Sorry Tom Courtenay. And I left out Nureyev with the Royal Ballet in Romeo and Juliet. Though I was really going to see Christopher Gable and he cancelled! I was bummed but the house was electric.

Low life Polish people.

On the contrary, the vast majority of Polish people who have come to live in the UK have worked very hard to establish themselves here. Very entrepreneurial people from what I have seen.

[quote]o one cares if the estates are in a trust (for future rich folk) or if it's owned outright. The fact remains if all of that Royal property was liquidated, property, trusts, jewels and all, it would be billions of dollars that could go to help the people in the UK. No excuse with all that money lying around for Pomp and Circumstance while people struggle to pay rent, homeless dying in the streets and living under bridges.

UK GDP is $3.5 trillion. A one-time sale of a dozen residence or so will have no appreciable effect on general welfare whatsoever. I see that the sterling US educational system has endowed you with a solid grasp of mathematics. In addition, even if the monarchy were abolished, the buildings would largely not be sold. They would be used by the elected head of state or operate as public buildings or museums. The US spends a fair bit on public and governmental buildings too, but your head is so far up your ass I assume you don't realize it.

The US also spends an astonishing amount on public ceremonial, including enormous expenditures on inaugurations every four years and a couple of presidential funerals a decade. Inauguration's aren't cheap---they just look cheap,

And did you really have to invite comparisons of the safety net for the poor in the UK, as compared to the US? You are really determined to be the chauvinistic buffoon.

The Crown in the UK has the same role in the division of powers as the U.S. Constitution: public servants - most notably the armed forces - swear allegiance to the Crown, not the government.

The monarch retains one key political power; the right to appoint a Prime Minister.

"It is the role of the King's private secretary, the prime minister’s principal private secretary and the cabinet secretary to maintain communication between Buckingham Palace and politicians in trying to establish who can command confidence. They are known colloquially as the ‘golden triangle’.

The Cabinet Manual emphasises that ensuring the King is able to appoint a successor is a role that "falls especially on the incumbent Prime Minister", who may also be asked to advise him on who is best placed to be appointed. It is advice with a lower-case a.

However, 1949 civil service papers say that the monarch "has the absolute right to consult anyone he pleases" and that in a "complicated political situation" the monarch can consult more widely.

There were at least two occasions in the reign of Queen Elizabeth II where she had to make a decision that caused controversy.

In July 1953, Prime Minister Winston Churchill suffered a stroke at a time when his expected successor, Anthony Eden, was undergoing an operation. Buckingham Palace had to consider options for a caretaker prime minister if Churchill died. In 1963, she invited Alec Douglas-Home to see whether he could form a government when the outgoing prime minister, Harold Macmillan, advised her to do so. This was against the wishes of other senior Conservatives who expected to be in the running and eventually led to the introduction of formal rules for how Conservative leaders are chosen."

All hell would have to be breaking loose and the system in chaos, but in the absence of a legitimate person to be PM, the king has the power to make the decision. It's real. So, no, not just window dressing.

[quote]The US also spends an astonishing amount on public ceremonial, including enormous expenditures on inaugurations every four years and a couple of presidential funerals a decade. Inauguration's aren't cheap---they just look cheap,

R259, there are 5X as many Americans as there are Brits. The US economy is 9X bigger than the UK's. We can afford it. And as Dolly P says, it costs a lot of money to look this cheap. And we've got it to spend on ceremony and pageantry. Yet Prince Charles is a BILLIONAIRE who, if you added up all of the work he does, it might be a 300 pound year salary. Beyond the numbers, the mental cost of knowing you are supporting someone's lifestyle that hasn't come anywhere close earning it is a debt every single citizen in the UK carries. You may say you need it. Fair enough. But it's like a four year old not being able to give up his blankey.

The simple fact is there is absolutely no First World Country that NEEDS a Monarchy in 2024. It's all for show. And the UK's is the most bloated of them all.

And yet the majority of UK citizens are in favour of retaining the monarchy.

That really should be the end of the discussion, but you Americans, being American, know better than the UK what is best for the UK.

Americans will never be in a position to judge any other democracy, ever again. But keep on sounding like Trump.

The USA isn’t exactly a beacon for republicanism right now, is it, with a convicted felon / fascist / rapist etc running neck and neck with the democratic candidate? It shouldn’t be a contest, should it?

So come back lecturing the UK on the best system of government for them once you’ve sorted out how it is that half your country’s voters support that orange thug. Oh, and once you’ve restructured or better yet, ditched the electoral college.

Not to forget the SCOTUS and its power, most recently regarding Roe v Wade. The Second Amendment. Stuff like that.

As many people on the DL like to say - I’ll wait.

Then you might have some credibility

R265, she's that blowhard expat living in Europe who likes to bloviate about the world's desperate need for the [italic]ideeeeeea[/italic] of America. The usual rubbish. She's most interesting when she's on ignore.

And beware, R265, if you haven't noticed she can't say anything in less than three very long paragraphs.

People with addictions are completely in favor of their drug of choice R263. That doesn't mean anything. My point is that no first world country NEEDS a monarchy. It's all for show. It's a very expensive of habit. And at the end of the day, it is a crutch. I am not saying give it up if you don't want to. But as Britain increasingly slips behind the rest of the world, it becomes more and more apparent. But like I said several threads ago - the biggest fear for the British is to come to terms with who they would be without a Monarchy. It IS their identity. And when you look at the figure heads of state, including teary eyed Camilla behind a fan, there is not much to get behind.

And as far as America is concerned, we shed our skin every four to eight years. There is always hope and there is always an opportunity for change, growth, to move in a different direction. We don't have any singular figureheads, supported by subjects that we are stuck with for life, and the lives after that until eternity.

Neither expat nor living in Europe, R266 - of course that could be the only reason that someone would have a view different to yours, right?

I notice that you haven’t even attempted to tell me where I’m wrong - because you can’t - it also begs the question - if you have me on ignore, how do you know what I’ve posted?

Couldn’t resist peeking, could you, you twit?

You’re replying to the wrong poster, R266 - but do go on.

Had you on ignore, R270 mistakenly took you off and now happily restoring you.

You're right, you're the blowhard from Detroit, if not the blowhard annoying the Italians.

But listen to yourself, if the winds aren't too strong up there on your high horse:

"I notice that you haven’t even attempted to tell me where I’m wrong - because you can’t -"

You don't debate, you pronounce. You're so boring people are asleep before you finish saying your name.

[quote] Think about it, dead queen, split family, cancer outbreak, bald heads.

Some curse. The queen died at age 96.

[quote]London in the 70s was a complete shithole.

And London in the 2020s is 1/2 a playground for filthy rich foreign scumbags and 1/2 a welfare state for religious fanatic foreign scumbags.

Shitholes in different ways.

[quote]London in the 70s was a complete shithole.

Is that why there were so many issues with Mrs. Slocombe's pussy?

This is late, but in reply to R156, Queen Elizabeth II did not establish the Commonwealth. It was proposed in 1917 and formally instituted in 1931 and the monarchy had nothing to do with its creation.

QEII did, however, do an enormous amount of work to stabilise the Commonwealth as an entity that brought together nations of which she was Head of State without any conspicuous British interference or piracy, like in the good ol' days of the empire. Those early tours she did got vast crowds and, together with the Commonwealth Games, really brought the concept to life post-War.

Camilla will just be a constant bundle of tears for years and years after Charles dies.

R263 You take it all so very seriously. I don't think Americans are telling you what to do, but some people are just born mean and they think it's fun to poke at the sheep.

It's amazing to me the BRF has managed all year to keep such a tight lid on both the King's and Catherine's prognoses. They've not been as good at keeping a lock on the real reason for the last queen's death (bone cancer).

Do you really think they didn't authorize that disclosure?

Why don’t more people care about Camilla’s life sized Blackamoor lamp, at R245?

Does everyone in the U.K. have Blackamoor collections, and it’s just to outsiders that it seems weird?

Why do Camilla and the U.K. people delight in them so?

R282 Why yes, everyone in the UK, regardless of income, has a large collection of life-sized Blackamoor lamps in their home, as required by law.

Why do you ask?

Hahahahaha!

[quote] Why don’t more people care about Camilla’s life sized Blackamoor lamp, at [R245]?

Because it's not, and never has been, hers.

It belonged to people who lived in the house after her.

[quote] Do you really think they didn't authorize that disclosure?

Not wearing a tinfoil hat myself, I can say: yes, I really don't think they authorized that disclosure.

R285

Up until r287's reply, I thought Blackamoor was a location in England. Looking at the pieces in the Wikipedia article, figures that have black features don't seem to me to be inherently racist. It should really be determined by what each piece is depicting.

[quote]r288 figures that have black features don't seem to me to be inherently racist. It should really be determined by what each piece is depicting.

Some of the figures are more horrifying than others. An uncomfortable aspect is usually the figures are used as the bases of tables, or (like Camilla’s) holding a lamp. So the black person is depicted as not just a permanent servant, but is really reduced to being a piece of furniture.

Some of the Blackamoor figures are worse than others - like, sometimes the black figure is depicted in chains while it’s supporting a table or something : (

[quote]Some of the Blackamoor figures are worse than others - like, sometimes the black figure is depicted in chains while it’s supporting a table or something : (

Yes, that would be very different than an innocuous figure that is just standing there not doing anything in particular.

She doesn't give a fuck. None of them do.

"Of course, we have small black people to lift things and hold things. Who else would do it?"

[quote]r285 Because [that Blackamoor lamp] is not, and never has been, hers. It belonged to people who lived in the house after her.

Last year HELLO magazine attributed that photo to being of Camilla's entrance hall at Ray Mill House in Wiltshire.

Are you saying they printed a retraction?

R180, See? This is exactly why I wrote, "You Brits are so easy to rile" ... No sense of humor. Calm down and enjoy a cuppa chamomile. You're overly stressed. Maybe relocate to Scotland. It is less stressful and much, much nicer up there.

R292, this is a very nice photo of Camilla. One of the nicest I've seen.

Yes of course R293 - whatever makes you feel better. You were caught out as the American idiot that you are and then tried to pretend that you were just joking.

Nothing has changed - still an American. Still an idiot. And Scotland is part of Great Britain - obviously you wouldn’t know that.

Get your own shit country sorted before passing judgement on any other countries.

Oh, and if that hurt your little feelings? Get a sense of humour, I was only joking.

You dim cunt.

I’ll ask once again, as I have many times before on these threads (and not gotten a response): why do you Americans care? You got rid of the monarchy yourselves (as you love to tell everyone - the result these days? Not so great) and good luck to you so what’s it to you what happens with the British monarchy a couple of centuries later? Why do you care? And what makes you think that your opinion matters (apart from being American which of course means that you always know best - even when it doesn’t)?

Seriously. Surely one of you can put this into words because it’s a mystery to me. You can’t just all be just loud and stupid. There has to be someone who can reply cogently and concisely.

Foreigners get upset when Americans don't care about other countries and they get upset when we do take an interest in other countries. No pleasing foreigners.

In fairness, when DL takes an interest in another country it's usually for the purpose of taking a dump on it. Unless Trump was winning and you all were gonna move to one of them.

[quote]Unless Trump was winning and you all were gonna move to one of them.

There is a segment of DL that believes the myths of a utopian Scandinavia where they can get stuff for free without having to work for it.

And that utopian Scandinavia is happy to roll out the welcome mat to all Americans on their arrival at Copenhagen, Stockholm or Oslo airports, for no other reason than that they are American.

Do you really believe that, r300?

R301 you need to get your irony detector recalibrated, although I do understand that there are posters on here who would see what I posted as really rather feasible.

Plenty of examples on the “If Trump wins, where are you moving to?” threads.

And R298 is proven to be correct, if uncomfortable.

Back o the thread:

I believe that Our 'Milla burst into tears after realizing that after all the years of scheming with Charles to make her Queen, that once he is gone, she is nothing more than a glorified mistress who has no blood relations to the royals. She will be, basically, The Princess Whore. I hope William removes her HRH.

[quote]R285 The blackamoor lamp belonged to people who lived in the house after her.

Do you mean “before her”? Because Camilla still owns the house. I presume she isn’t renting it out.

The Funniest Moments From the Royal Tour of Australia and Samoa.

No R305 - they are referring to the house that Camilla and her first husband lived in. She bought her current house after they separated.

Nice try, though.

There is a lot of anger in this thread.

It’s not so much anger R308, but weariness at having to explain, yet again, how the British monarchy works to a bunch of self appointed royalty experts whose sole qualifications are binge watching The Crown on a rainy weekend.

You got rid of the monarchy - good for you - but it seems that some of you just can’t let it go and repeatedly open these threads to demonstrate your lack of knowledge, alleged lack of interest and the fact that you know better than the citizens of the UK and the Commonwealth what is best for them in systems of government and membership of the Commonwealth.

When pressed on why you care - not one of you has been able to provide an answer, which I think is telling.

Now - back to the St Lady Di stories, the horse and tampon jokes, Kate cancer diagnoses and who curtsies to whom! It’s so entertaining to some of you - every single time.

r296 we care because the royals are pure entertainment. Why wouldn't we care about your British celebs? You can't sit there and pretend Brits don't have opinions on American celebs in the news. These people are your version of the Kardashians. Sorry, not, sorry, they are equally as useless, trashy, selfish, and wasteful. But, folks love to talk about the Kardashians, same for the royals.

r296, I hope you read this and stop pretending this question hasn't been answered a hundred times already. Then ask yourself why you are on an American website, in a thread about royals, yet are shocked to read about Americans discussing said royals. What did you expect? If you didn't want to hear the opinions of Yanks, you should have gone to the British DL site...oh wait, that doesn't exist!

R296 You worship an overclass of racist perverted amoral toe-sucking leeches, each more inbred and unattractive than the next. You clothe them and feed them and house them in the very finest, adorning them with stolen jewels, trotting them out for "ceremonies" in ermine and gigantic crowns. They are demigods.

I care because I love a circus and it's so hard to look away from a car crash.

[quote]There is a lot of anger in this thread.

Second only to the ignorance to fact, history, function or symbolism. But as so many are fond of pointing out, it is an American website.

I'd like to know what has become of Boris Johnson.

And his hair. Does it still like he was struck by lightning?

I'm pro-British, but anyone who eats with their fork turned upside down is kind of cuckoo.

That's the European way of eating- fork in left hand, downturned.

Not just Europe - anywhere outside the USA where knives and forks are used. In fact I’ve noticed that the higher orders in the USA also eat this way.

Not everybody impales their food with a fist-clutched fork like pinning down a calf in the slaughterhouse then sawing off bits to be chewed, then putting down the knife, swapping hands and once again stabbing the chopped up bits with the fork again.

R310 and R311 why do so many of you assume that if somebody argues the point about the BRF or corrects you when you’re wrong - which is often - that they must be British?

American myopia once again.

Do carry on, though - it’s amusing.

[quote] It’s not so much anger [R308], but weariness at having to explain, yet again, how the British monarchy works to a bunch of self appointed royalty experts whose sole qualifications are binge watching The Crown on a rainy weekend.

You say this over and over again, and have for years.

You are as monotonous and dreary and dogged a troll as the old Yellow Skin/Womanly Ass Troll, which is really saying something.

[quote]You say this over and over again, and have for years.

It makes her feel like she has some value on this earth. Sadly, she's mistaken about that too.

Here is the first half of all of the Anti-American Troll's posts just on this one thread so far.

He is probably the single most toxic troll on DL since the days of Queen Helen Bedd, which is really saying something.

The sheer rancor is pretty spectacular:

[quote]Amazing insight R4, apart from Charles living in neither Harlem nor Beverly Hills - those being locations in New York City and Los Angeles, USA - cities in another country than the UK. But thanks for your input, I guess.

[quote]R14 she doesn’t just pop on the Crown Jewels when she’s feeling like a bit of a glow up before heading up to Kensington High Street.

[quote]I’ve been here for over a decade but that doesn’t mean that I don’t continue to be amazed at the American capacity to assume expert knowledge on a subject about which you know so little. It’s what you do, right, R18?

[quote]She didn’t wear white to Charles’s wedding to Diana, R42. Why make stuff up? There are pictures of her in a grey suit with matching pillbox hat.

[quote]That is sooo funnneee R54!

[quote]R91 what a clever idea drafting Princess Beatrix into the British Royal Family! I’m sure that the Dutch would be pleased to see their former queen put to work again.

[quote]You forgot “intelligent” and “know what they are talking about” R95.

[quote]R96 not nearly as entertaining as the American posters who have no idea on the subject but of course want to share their stupidity with the rest of us.

[quote] R103 Charles used his navy severance pay to found the Prince's Trust.

[quote]R106 perhaps you had better tell the King that he got it wrong re using the term “severance pay” - my source was the King’s Trust website (see below FYI). All the best!

[quote] Possibly - or maybe he was just referring to his age and the fact that state visits are pretty rare - his mother only visited Western Samoa once in her 70 year reign. He just visited Australia - given the distances involved, his age and his illness I’d say that it’s highly unlikely that he will be back.Happy to be proven wrong some day!

[quote]It's funny how some of you immediately (and mistakenly) assume that if somebody disagrees with you on these threads that they are British.

[quote]Thank you, R126, for the injection of some sanity into the discussion.There is a subset of posters who are absolutely fucking gagging for another royal funeral. Diana's was the hallmark, Philip's was too small (Covid) and Elizabeth II's didn't have enough mass wailing, flower leaving and general hysteria as she was 96 FFS.

[quote]Of course what they really yearn for is Kate's ("so young", "so beautiful" "those dear little children", "Candle in the Wind" etc) so they'll take Charles's for now while they continue the Kate death watch. Sadly for them Kate has looked better each time that she's appeared in public. Must be those secret visits to the Houston Cancer Hospital. Plus lace-front wigs and Indian extensions.

Part 2 of the Anti-American Troll's awesomely venomous posts:

[quote]Oh for fuck's sake - some of you old nannas really need to get a grip. Diana (a "homewrecker" herself) has been dead for 27 years. Camilla (also a "homewrecker" married to two homewreckers in succession) has apparently been happily married to Charles - another ("homewrecker") - for nearly twenty years - longer than Charles and Diana were married. Life is messy. People don't always marry the right person - in fact, they often don't. Out of all that, Charles and Camilla seem happily married in their twilight years, Princess Anne (ex-girlfriend of Camilla's ex Andrew P-B) and Tim Laurence seem happy enough, Anne's ex Mark Philiips is happily ensconced on Anne's estate with his latest wife or girlfriend and Andrew P-B was happily married to his next wife who sadly died and they all seem to get on quite well, which is the way of the British aristocracy.

[quote]That's how the British aristocracy has always operated - it's when some of you try and impose your American suburban curtain-twitching values on a foreign culture that you get yourselves in a state.

[quote]R106 do let us know when you've had a response from the King's Trust regarding their incorrect use of the King's English in using the words "Navy severance pay" - I know how particular you are regarding these very important things.

[quote]“Liz”? “Trailer park?Why do you Americans think that what you think matters, R147?

[quote]For R106 - the OED defines “severance pay” as:noun: an amount paid to an employee on the early termination of a contract. If it’s good enough for the King and for the Oxford English Dictionary it’s hopefully good enough for you.

[quote]R172 do you seriously think that Diana, who had no access to them even while married, was tooling around Paris in white jeans and a black T-shirt, wearing the Crown Jewels? What say I? You’re a simpleton. Is it any wonder that Americans on these threads get laughed off for being so stupid?

[quote]“Easy to rile”, R378? You were the poster who said that Camilla would lose the Crown Jewels when Charles dies. If anyone should be embarrassed, R378 - it’s you. Maybe stick to the Golden Girls threads in future.

[quote]^^^ make that R178

[quote]And just to add R178 - how very American of you to assume that somebody who points out your stupidity is a “Brit”.I’m not.

[quote]R191 there is absolutely no point in trying to educate Americans with facts because, as always, Americans know better.Even when they don’t.

[quote]R193 I’m not quite sure who you think “The Royals” are, but if you’re referring to the present monarch - he owns Balmoral Castle and Sandringham House. Both hefty properties if he wanted to offload them - although who could afford them? They are quite grand although what’s the point of being a fucking King if you can’t have a couple of castles?

Part 3 of the AA Troll's posts, just on one thread!

[quote]If you’re referring to Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle or the Palace of Holyrood House in Edinburgh (a city in Scotland FYI) - they aren’t his to liquidate. They belong to the Crown Estates - held in trust for future generations. The monarch just gets to live in them. Which is rather nice for Windsor and Holyrood, less so for Buckingham Palace which is a massive white elephant requiring a huge amount of upkeep and which all The Royals (there’s that expression again) have apparently loathed for generations.Then there is Highgrove house in Gloucestershire which is now owned by the Prince of Wales so that The King is his son’s tenant, and a number of smaller properties (Castle of Mey in Scotland. A couple of hard to spell places in Wales which now belong to William, a place in Northern Ireland which the King as Prince of Wales bought and restored. I guess he could sell those off or get some tenants in which would make not even a tiny difference to the finances of the UK or t the number of homeless therein.It’s sweet that you have an interest these things and I do understand that “as an American” you feel that your thoughts on the subject carry a lot of weight, but it does help to get your facts straight first and not just sound off on a subject about which you know very little.

[quote]R193 - just a little reminder - the currency in the UK is not the dollar.I imagine that this may come as a shock to you - other “countries” have other “currencies”.Tell me that you’re American without saying that you’re American.

[quote]R193 just suppose that the UK dispensed with the Monarchy - the former monarch would still have private ownership of Balmoral and Sandringham and a few other properties and would have a lovely time up north drinking champagne and eating kedgiree.The Crown Estates would be up to the new Republic of England to dispose of as they see fit.

[quote]How do you see that working? Are you picturing a Ritz Carlton Buckingham Palace and Spa? The Windsor Castle luxury getaway villas and wedding venue?I’d love to hear your very informed “as an American” thoughts.

[quote]Im not British, R198 - it’s not my Commonwealth - but I do understand why you would say that. Please don’t assume that anybody on here with a contrary view is.

[quote]R201 showing that American stupidity should never be underestimated.Sometimes it’s best to just shut the fuck up, R201.

[quote]Is it arrogance or just basic fucking stupidity that makes some of you so happy share your lack of understanding with the rest of us?

[quote] You’re intimately acquainted with Queen Camilla, are you, R217? Privy to all her innermost feelings?Or are you just another pear shaped DL fifty year old shut in who has never left their square state?

[quote] R246 yet another know all / know nothing American. Why do you even care? I would have thought that there would be enough going on in your own country to allow you time to obsess over the structure of state and government in another. Sort yourselves out first - that could take a while.

Part 4!:

[quote]I know that you think that “as an American” that this gives some kind of imprimatur to your incorrect blatherings, but it doesn’t.

[quote]And yet the majority of UK citizens are in favour of retaining the monarchy.

[quote]That really should be the end of the discussion, but you Americans, being American, know better than the UK what is best for the UK.

[quote] The USA isn’t exactly a beacon for republicanism right now, is it, with a convicted felon / fascist / rapist etc running neck and neck with the democratic candidate? It shouldn’t be a contest, should it?

[quote]So come back lecturing the UK on the best system of government for them once you’ve sorted out how it is that half your country’s voters support that orange thug. Oh, and once you’ve restructured or better yet, ditched the electoral college.Not to forget the SCOTUS and its power, most recently regarding Roe v Wade. The Second Amendment. Stuff like that. As many people on the DL like to say - I’ll wait. Then you might have some credibility

And finally, part 5!:

[quote]Neither expat nor living in Europe, R266 - of course that could be the only reason that someone would have a view different to yours, right? I notice that you haven’t even attempted to tell me where I’m wrong - because you can’t - it also begs the question - if you have me on ignore, how do you know what I’ve posted? Couldn’t resist peeking, could you, you twit?

[quote]You’re replying to the wrong poster, R266 - but do go on.

[quote]Yes of course R293 - whatever makes you feel better. You were caught out as the American idiot that you are and then tried to pretend that you were just joking.Nothing has changed - still an American. Still an idiot. And Scotland is part of Great Britain - obviously you wouldn’t know that. Get your own shit country sorted before passing judgement on any other countries. Oh, and if that hurt your little feelings? Get a sense of humour, I was only joking.You dim cunt.

[quote]I’ll ask once again, as I have many times before on these threads (and not gotten a response): why do you Americans care? You got rid of the monarchy yourselves (as you love to tell everyone - the result these days? Not so great) and good luck to you so what’s it to you what happens with the British monarchy a couple of centuries later? Why do you care? And what makes you think that your opinion matters (apart from being American which of course means that you always know best - even when it doesn’t)? Seriously. Surely one of you can put this into words because it’s a mystery to me. You can’t just all be just loud and stupid. There has to be someone who can reply cogently and concisely.

[quote]And that utopian Scandinavia is happy to roll out the welcome mat to all Americans on their arrival at Copenhagen, Stockholm or Oslo airports, for no other reason than that they are American.

[quote] R301 you need to get your irony detector recalibrated, although I do understand that there are posters on here who would see what I posted as really rather feasible.Plenty of examples on the “If Trump wins, where are you moving to?” threads.

[quote]No R305 - they are referring to the house that Camilla and her first husband lived in. She bought her current house after they separated.Nice try, though.

[quote]It’s not so much anger R308, but weariness at having to explain, yet again, how the British monarchy works to a bunch of self appointed royalty experts whose sole qualifications are binge watching The Crown on a rainy weekend.You got rid of the monarchy - good for you - but it seems that some of you just can’t let it go and repeatedly open these threads to demonstrate your lack of knowledge, alleged lack of interest and the fact that you know better than the citizens of the UK and the Commonwealth what is best for them in systems of government and membership of the Commonwealth. When pressed on why you care - not one of you has been able to provide an answer, which I think is telling.

[quote] Now - back to the St Lady Di stories, the horse and tampon jokes, Kate cancer diagnoses and who curtsies to whom! It’s so entertaining to some of you - every single time.

[quote]Not just Europe - anywhere outside the USA where knives and forks are used. In fact I’ve noticed that the higher orders in the USA also eat this way. Not everybody impales their food with a fist-clutched fork like pinning down a calf in the slaughterhouse then sawing off bits to be chewed, then putting down the knife, swapping hands and once again stabbing the chopped up bits with the fork again.

[quote]R310 and R311 why do so many of you assume that if somebody argues the point about the BRF or corrects you when you’re wrong - which is often - that they must be British? American myopia once again.Do carry on, though - it’s amusing.

Hilarious! I have a stalker. Post away, dickhead - my posting history is there for all to see if they have the time and inclination that you do to scoop it up and repost it. I stand by all of it.

Some of you DL queens are so thin-skinned - you wouldn’t survive 5 minutes in the real world. Which is why you never leave the sad tiny little towns that you live in.

Have a good one! And fingers crossed for Kamala tomorrow!

[quote]Post away, dickhead - my posting history is there for all to see if they have the time and inclination that you do to scoop it up and repost it.

"Time and energy"??? Hon, YOU'RE the one writing more on this thread then Edward Gibbon wrote in his entire lifetime. All I had to do was cut and paste it!

Good Lord, just look at it--you've been at it forever! You must be the angriest person imaginable to be this unbelievably poisonous .

Who the fuck repeatedly beat you as a small child??

As I said - “thin-skinned”, R327. You’re the embodiment of it.

Keep posting my history, if that’s how you get your kicks. I don’t care. Most people will just scroll on by as they’ll find it far less interesting than you seem to do - but I assume that you are used to that.

It won’t stop me posting.

Enjoy your evening, in whatever twisted little way that you do.

R318 Your initial question was answered.

I don't give a flying fuck at a rolling donut where you're from.

Now you are drunk and you're not making any sense.

Maybe think about Megan for a while and then jack off and go to sleep?

Absolutely R329! You are completely right!

Definitely, R331 - you have made your point concisely and cogently.

Have you met R327 and R329? I think that you three would get on famously!

R329

There’s not much more amusing R333 than Americans trying to behave intelligently, while failing miserably and falling on their fat white arses while the rest of us look on. Keep it up!

R335 We're not all white.

You seem like such an incredibly unhappy and unpleasant person. What happened, honey?

I'm an American who hasn't posted on this thread. Some of you should be ashamed at your blatant bigotry. We can do better than this.

Yes R333, R336 and R367 - you care enough to search for and find unflatterIng pictures of the British Queen Consort - well done! And I will ask again, why? Why do you care enough about the wife of the Head of State of another country?

And once again I know that the response will be crickets. You’re all a bit sad, aren’t you, American BRF obsessives? As well as stupid.

You ditched the British monarchy two centuries ago - why can’t you let that go and just enjoy your shining emblematic republic? Why are you so incapable of answering a simple question?

You don’t care, but you obviously do. It’s a bit pathetic really, isn’t it?

[quote]There’s not much more amusing [R333] than Americans trying to behave intelligently, while failing miserably and falling on their fat white arses while the rest of us look on. Keep it up!

There is nothing more embarrassing that Brits who openly display their racism by assuming in 2024 Americans are all white even after they are the ones who brought the slaves to the new world resulting in 13% of the population being black. I guess 41 million people is an oversight. Or the 64 million Hispanics. Is it an intelligence failure, racism or both?

Only slightly less embarrassing than DL posters like R341 assuming that if someone disagrees with them that they have to be a “Brit”. Here’s a surprise for you, R341 - there are other countries in the world apart from the UK and USA, and other posters on the DL other than Americans and “Brits” - shocking, isn’t it?

Weak dodge R342, since this whole thread is about Queen Camilla, the Royal Family and Brits bitching about how Americans don't know anything about them, it's the most plausible assumption without self identifying yourself. But please feel free to post a selfie. Either way, my point still stands. Totally racist to assume America is all white given the history and huge racial diversity it's known for.

I’ll humour you for a moment, R343 - how would posting a selfie prove my nationality? Would you like a scan of my passport as well?

R340 Your question has been answered REPEATEDLY upthread. There are no crickets here.

"everyone is stoopid'.

ok

Yes, r344 please scan your passport with photo ID along with your phone number and country of origin. Might as well since you are trying to change the subject from your embarrassing display of racism and lack of intelligence assuming Americans are all white even though over 100 million are black and Hispanic. More than the entire population of the UK.

R340 Monarchists keep stating that the function of the British Royal family is to attract attention.

They claim that they're worth the expense because they bring in so much tourism and publicity.

Charles and Andrew have turned the RF into the Nation's favorite soap opera.

Been going on longer than Coronation Street, the world's longest-running TV soap opera, premiering in 1960.

Unless you start Charle's soap opera as starting with his "coronation" as PoW in 1969.

Is Weatherfield in Wales? Should have been.

Those stating that “the "Royals" just steal it from the public” on one hand, or those saying that the monarchy is great for bringing in more tourists on the other, all seem to be missing the real point of keeping it.

In all the rankings of the countries of the world - according to social indices, lack of corruption, etc. – placed at the top of these lists are Denmark, Sweden and Norway. The Netherlands can be found in a respectable place, as is Belgium, despite its demographic complexity. Even Spain, a young democracy with a recent past of dictatorship and a bloody civil war is not lagging that far behind. Among the countries in Asia (and in general), Japan leads in many indices.

Common to all these countries, as well as to the United Kingdom, is the adoption of a successful democratic government model which preserves the tradition of a royal house, but with virtually all powers taken away from it, being a ceremonial institution only. The advantage of this combination, which ostensibly represents a built-in paradox, is the separation between a secular nature, devoid of an inherent holiness, of the democratic idea and the mythological, romantic, divine splendor embodied in the "eternal" succession of the royal family. A king or a queen embody in their form all the theatrical fantasies which appeal to a large portion of the public, but in these constitutional monarchies, this yearning strengthens an institution that is devoid of any real power. Facing them are politicians, who have real power, but, by definition, are devoid of glory and majesty. They are leaders for a moment, successful/ popular to a certain degree, but hardly anyone mistake them for monarchs. Unlike kings, they do not represent eternity and certainly do not embody the state.

In democratic countries where there is no monarch, there is always the danger that an elected leader will be seen as a substitute for a king. Putin in Russia, Erdoğan in Turkey, Berlusconi in Italy, Netanyahu in Israel, Trump in the US - all of them are/were leaders who seem to believe in full identification between them and their country and between their own personal interests and those of the public they are supposed to serve. They portray in their conduct Louis XIV's statement, "I am the state".

Such a glorification of an elected prime minister is not possible in a country like Great Britain. In 1945, after the Nazi threat was over, it was George VI who represented the continuity of national existence, while the national hero, the revered Prime Minister of the nation, Winston Churchill, was deposed from office in that year's election. From Margaret Thatcher to Tony Blair to Boris Johnson - the premiership does not give the (temporary) elected official a lofty aura. This is reserved for the monarch, and because the monarch has no real power, so - too - is the pathos.

So, the kind of monarchy practiced in the UK is a very sophisticated and effective tool for a democratic nation to preserve and defend its own democracy from the dangers of populism. Ostensibly despite - and in fact because - of the inherent irony of it.

She's so sick she's pulled out of engagements this week... chest infection.... and Charles cut off Andrew 1M a year allowance... it has been in the papers the last few days.

[quote]Totally racist to assume America is all white given the history and huge racial diversity it's known for.

And adding up the successes and the failures, how's that working out for ya?

R353 These reface posts are such failures.

R352 is not a reface. LOL

Untold misery these ugly people foisted on the world, still slipping downward I see, almost down to eastern Europe level soon, perhaps the Russian oligarchs can cough up some help since they own the UK.

You are either lying or you are deluded. She desperately wanted to marry Charles and become queen. Queen Elizabeth did not want Camilla to be called 'Queen " and even said publicly she was to be called queen consort but no Camilla did not care what Elizabeth wanted and demanded to be called "queen ". Charles alw

Always does what Camilla wants.(sorry for the cut off post. I'm on the subway)

Fuck all this, it’s Guy Fawkes Night. I’m off to wave sparklers and eat parkin.

Oh lookie! Look! R352 has made it known that Camilla and her horsie use the same dentist!

Wrong as always R357 - as the wife of The King, Camilla is known as The Queen, also as “Queen Camilla” when there are other queens around ho ho ho. She is also referred to on occasion as “Queen Consort” to identify that she has her title and style from being married to the Monarch - The King - rather than from being a Queen Regnant - go look that one up - I have neither the time nor the inclination to educate you on this.

But while you’re here - do fill us in on how you are privy to what Camilla wanted re marrying Charles in the seventies, what Queen Elizabeth wanted wrt Camilla’s style and title in the 2020s and when Camilla demanded to be called “Queen”. You seem amazingly well-connected, to be privy to these peoples’ innermost thoughts and conversations - as opposed to a fantasist - do tell!

I hope she is known as Camilla, Queen for a day, after Chuck moves on.

R321 through R325: I'd like to thank you for doing the tedious job of recapping the diatribe from one of our butt-hurt DL members.