Tabloids: Gossip, Innuendo, and Déclassé

[Roseanna]

13 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Exposing Charles for the sniveling adulterer he is

Charles and Camilla ceased to be adulterers decades ago, when they divorced from their spouses. The Church, the Queen, the government as well as their children accepted their marriage.   

I have hated some politicians who have f.ex. bombed civilians - but I ceased to hate them after their resignation, so it was about their policy which is a public matter.  

[merylinkid]

10 hours ago, suomi said:

, add the factor of an incoming monarch at his advanced age

That's exactly why I think the Monarchy will survive.   Charles will only be King for a short time.   He's already in his 70s.   Although his parents are in their 90s, they won't live WELL into 100s.    So Charles is what 75?  80? when he becomes king.    Then he's king for about 15 years or so?   Then we get William.    People will just wait it out.   Because as noted above -- the people are devoted to the Crown.   Charles will only wear it for a time.

As for HBC and her complaints -- I presume she knew it was fiction when she signed up.    A little late to complaint about historical inaccuracies.   

[Umbelina]

14 hours ago, suomi said:

16 hours ago, Growsonwalls said:

By the time Charles becomes King, Diana will probably have been gone at least 25 years and counting. There's a whole generation of people that only know Diana from books and movies.  

If not for the widely watched television series under discussion the part about only knowing Diana from books and movies would be true.

But The Crown is sending great numbers of today's youngest generation to the internet for background information. It's no longer necessary to read books like it previously was. These days an hour or even 30 minutes down a rabbit hole concisely  lays out the unfortunate set of incidents.  

Realistically, how much longer does QE Ii have? Another year or two, three? It's not like the next generation after this one will be the one deciding whether to retain the BRF. It will be up to the generation that is currently watching The Crown.

It says a lot that the pertinent social media accounts have disabled comments within a week of the series dropping. That speaks volumes about how delicately balanced this issue is and how easily the efforts of the PR machine over the last twenty years can be undone. 

Exactly, especially to your last paragraph.  This is obviously a concerted effort and (to me) it's highly probably that this is happening for one reason.

To keep the monarchy going they are stuck with Charles and Camilla.  People are remembering, or learning for the first time just how odious both are.

Blaming this show is ridiculous.  Many are stuck at home anyway (I am) and yes, the youtube rabbit holes are real, and we can hear them speak in their own voices as well.  My rabbit hole has even taken me to other "royals" like Mountbatten, which is worth a TV series all by itself.  It's relevant since he was a primary influence on the future King, Charles.

Telling people "it's not real!  it needs a warning label!"  is backfiring, because hey, there is a LOT of "real" out there, easily available, and frankly, it's much worse than anything THE CROWN is showing.

Also, people HAVE noticed Camilla's "remake" all along, but now, seeing it as a massive PR machine?  That could grate more.  From the massively expensive jewels Charles is giving her (his and her favorites are those from her famous ancestor who also committed adultery with a King) to her brand new teeth, to her (again massively expensive) new designer wardrobe.  Her newfound interest in charities rather than just hunting is also noticed.  

People, in general, don't like being manipulated.

9 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Charles and Camilla ceased to be adulterers decades ago, when they divorced from their spouses. The Church, the Queen, the government as well as their children accepted their marriage.   

I have hated some politicians who have f.ex. bombed civilians - but I ceased to hate them after their resignation, so it was about their policy which is a public matter.  

No.  They will always both be adulterers.  

It's much different than a politician for many reasons.  1.  It's an inherited position from which he cannot be voted out.  2.  He's supposed to be head of the church when he ascends to King, and he's violated many rules already, as has his "bride." 

6 hours ago, merylinkid said:

That's exactly why I think the Monarchy will survive.   Charles will only be King for a short time.   He's already in his 70s.   Although his parents are in their 90s, they won't live WELL into 100s.    So Charles is what 75?  80? when he becomes king.    Then he's king for about 15 years or so?   Then we get William.    People will just wait it out.   Because as noted above -- the people are devoted to the Crown.   Charles will only wear it for a time.

As for HBC and her complaints -- I presume she knew it was fiction when she signed up.    A little late to complaint about historical inaccuracies.   

He could be King for 20 years or more, look at his father and mother.  Even if they accept Charles, there is Camilla as Queen to deal with.  This isn't centuries ago, this is now, with the internet, with awareness of the massive gap between the ultra rich and the poor or working class.

I think HBC was caught off guard, and possibly even misquoted.  Or her words were cut off to get the sound bite they needed to support their article.  She did a lot of work on her role, even hanging out with Margaret's best friend extensively to "get it right."

[Growsonwalls]

12 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

No.  They will always both be adulterers.  

It's much different than a politician for many reasons.  1.  It's an inherited position from which he cannot be voted out.  2.  He's supposed to be head of the church when he ascends to King, and he's violated many rules already, as has his "bride." 

This is 2020, not 1620. The Church of England's positions have very little bearing on everyday British life. British people do, in fact, get divorced with or without the Church's approval. What do you suggest for monarchs who want to get divorce? The Tower of London?

[Umbelina]

Just now, Growsonwalls said:

This is 2020, not 1620. The Church of England's positions have very little bearing on everyday British life. British people do, in fact, get divorced with or without the Church's approval. What do you suggest for monarchs who want to get divorce? The Tower of London?

Hey, I have no idea how devout the people are, I'd assume some are.  It's not just about the divorces.  It's about the adultery, and as far as I know, violating marriage vows is still rather important to most churches.  When a King and future head of the church does it?  As you said, it's not Henry VIII's time anymore, he can't just kill the wives he's tired of.  (Although many still think Charles did just that.)

He's an oath breaker at the very least.

[Growsonwalls]

3 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Hey, I have no idea how devout the people are, I'd assume some are.  It's not just about the divorces.  It's about the adultery, and as far as I know, violating marriage vows is still rather important to most churches.  When a King and future head of the church does it?  As you said, it's not Henry VIII's time anymore, he can't just kill the wives he's tired of.  (Although many still think Charles did just that.)

He's an oath breaker at the very least.

Ok. You say that. But Prince Philip probably violated his oath. Most kings violated their marriage oaths -- Victoria's son Albert was a notorious womanizer. So do you suggest Charles and Camila be beheaded in the Tower of London? 

As I said, it's 2020, not 1620, and divorce is a fact of life in modern countries. You can't turn back the clock this much. It sounds as if you want the most rigid, strict, definition of marriage to be applied to monarchs and that's just not possible.

If Joe Bartender can get a divorce, then Charles can get a divorce.

[Umbelina]

1 minute ago, Growsonwalls said:

Ok. You say that. But Prince Philip probably violated his oath. Most kings violated their marriage oaths -- Victoria's son Albert was a notorious womanizer. So do you suggest Charles and Camila be beheaded in the Tower of London? 

As I said, it's 2020, not 1620, and divorce is a fact of life in modern countries. You can't turn back the clock this much. It sounds as if you want the most rigid, strict, definition of marriage to be applied to monarchs and that's just not possible.

If Joe Bartender can get a divorce, then Charles can get a divorce.

No.  I suggest the age of monarchies is over, especially when the choice is Charles and Camilla.

It's not "the old days."  The internet exists.  Charles in on tape cheating on his (now dead) wife with a married woman.  

Aside from everything else?  I don't think many "subjects" respect or like Charles.  We are in an age where simply doing away with the "show" is possible, and if the future King and his Queen are distasteful?  People can do that, without beheadings or revolutions.

Will they?  Stay tuned.

Charles being an ass (not just about this) might be a huge part of it, but it also may be as simple as "the time has come to do away with this archaic nonsense."

Now, if he passed and it was William?  Yes, there might be more public support.  

[Growsonwalls]

5 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

No.  I suggest the age of monarchies is over, especially when the choice is Charles and Camilla.

It's not "the old days."  The internet exists.  Charles in on tape cheating on his (now dead) wife with a married woman.  

Aside from everything else?  I don't think many "subjects" respect or like Charles.  We are in an age where simply doing away with the "show" is possible, and if the future King and his Queen are distasteful?  People can do that, without beheadings or revolutions.

Will they?  Stay tuned.

Charles being an ass (not just about this) might be a huge part of it, but it also may be as simple as "the time has come to do away with this archaic nonsense."

Now, if he passed and it was William?  Yes, there might be more public support.  

I see what you mean. I agree that at some time, the British might decide that the symbiotic relationships between the monarchy and press/tourism/fashion are not worth supporting a whole class of aristocrats who are extremely offended at the idea that they are anything like "commoners." 

And that with Charles the time might come sooner rather than later.

However I don't think Charles will be the reason the monarchy ends. The severity of the coronavirus pandemic, the economic depression that has accompanied the worldwide pandemic, and perhaps a different government might change things.

I also don't know why William and Kate are so popular. Neither of them "work" very hard as royals, and both have rather blah public personalities.

[Umbelina]

17 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

I also don't know why William and Kate are so popular. Neither of them "work" very hard as royals, and both have rather blah public personalities.

He is Diana's child.  I think that kind of sums it up.  He also has an "acceptable" wife, and three lovely kids. 

ETA

Also, there is that whole thing I learned during the show about Elizabeth's anointing, and that a King or Queen is not appointed by any political group, but anointed by the church into their role.  It does make me wonder...

 

Edited December 2, 2020 by Umbelina

[meatball77]

On 12/1/2020 at 4:09 PM, Umbelina said:

Has anyone else been seeing the endless UK Tabloids insisting that the show put warning labels on each episode?

It started small, but it's growing, and so ridiculous.  The general idea of it is that the British people are demanding warning labels on each episode that this show is FICTION, and to not take it as history, because it's insulting to the Royal Family, and specifically to Philip and Camilla.  They are treating it as if it's a growing movement by the people.

I am on Facebook, and if you've ever "liked" anything, or clicked on something about one of The Crown actors, or costumes, etc. your feed will fill up with this "story" they are trying to make happen.

Of course, no mention is made of the endless "historical dramas" about other notable families, or historical events.  How many movies have been made about the Kennedy family, or JFK's death, or astronauts, or countless other still living people?  I don't recall seeing "warning labels" on any of them, but apparently the British are such marshmallows that they NEED them?  Oh please, anything for headlines.

Kinda funny that it took until season four for them to have a problem with it.

[Umbelina]

14 minutes ago, meatball77 said:

Kinda funny that it took until season four for them to have a problem with it.

Exactly.  

The first time Charles is portrayed as an adult, or rather the first time the future King (and Queen) are portrayed as an adult, all hell supposedly spontaneously breaks lose.

This is all PR, and I think we all know where it's coming from.  

No one objected last year when the actual Queen was portrayed as heartless and out of touch.

Edited December 2, 2020 by Umbelina
added "and Queen"

[dubbel zout]

More people remember the current season years than the earlier ones.

[Growsonwalls]

I think people like Kate because she has no personality. She smiles a lot and that's about it. 

[meatball77]

2 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

I think people like Kate because she has no personality. She smiles a lot and that's about it. 

William is basically the same.  They're both very vanilla.  Which is the goal.

[Umbelina]

10 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

More people remember the current season years than the earlier ones.

My point is, there was no outcry last year.  At all.  No demands for "warning labels" etc.  This is all about Charles and Camilla.  Probably organized by them as well.

9 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

I think people like Kate because she has no personality. She smiles a lot and that's about it. 

Just as the Queen advises on this show, to both Charles and Margaret.

6 minutes ago, meatball77 said:

William is basically the same.  They're both very vanilla.  Which is the goal.

Doing as Granny says.  😉

[Growsonwalls]

18 minutes ago, meatball77 said:

William is basically the same.  They're both very vanilla.  Which is the goal.

I mean she doesn't wear anything but nude pumps. That's how vanilla she is. Note to Kate: you can wear something other than beige pumps. 

[Ohiopirate02]

46 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

I mean she doesn't wear anything but nude pumps. That's how vanilla she is. Note to Kate: you can wear something other than beige pumps. 

Hey, wait. She wears beige espadrilles in the summer.  

[Umbelina]

Nude pumps are very practical. They go with everything, and they make one's legs look longer.

Sensible and pragmatic choice.

[qtpye]

4 hours ago, Growsonwalls said:

Ok. You say that. But Prince Philip probably violated his oath. Most kings violated their marriage oaths -- Victoria's son Albert was a notorious womanizer. So do you suggest Charles and Camila be beheaded in the Tower of London? 

As I said, it's 2020, not 1620, and divorce is a fact of life in modern countries. You can't turn back the clock this much. It sounds as if you want the most rigid, strict, definition of marriage to be applied to monarchs and that's just not possible.

If Joe Bartender can get a divorce, then Charles can get a divorce.

Joe the Bartender's former mistress and now current wife is not living a life of luxury supported by the tax payer's dime.

[Growsonwalls]

2 minutes ago, qtpye said:

Joe the Bartender's former mistress and now current wife is not living a life of luxury supported by the tax payer's dime.

They live in the same country though with the same laws. Monarchy shouldn't have laws that don't apply to the general populace. If divorce is allowed in the general populace it should be allowed in monarchy. Plus Charles isn't the first or last royal divorce. Andrew and Anne got divorced, as did Margaret. We can't send them all to the Tower of London.

Edited December 3, 2020 by Growsonwalls

[qtpye]

26 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

They live in the same country though with the same laws. Monarchy shouldn't have laws that don't apply to the general populace. If divorce is allowed in the general populace it should be allowed in monarchy. Plus Charles isn't the first or last royal divorce. Andrew and Anne got divorced, as did Margaret. We can't send them all to the Tower of London.

I actually have no problem with his divorce but hate this:

Although Prince Charles has taken a stand on important environmental issues such as sustainability and climate change, he has fallen pitifully short on animal-welfare issues. Whereas Prince Harry chose not to participate in a grouse hunt recently, Prince Charles has gone so far as to call fox hunting “romantic.” Animal rights is a growing topic of concern for Brits, so he is not going to win supporters by holding fast to those ideas—and being vocal about them.

and this

Even biographers of the prince don’t seem to like him. The New Yorker reports that Sally Bedell Smith, for instance, wrote a book that “would like to be a nuanced adjudication of the Prince’s ‘paradoxes.'” But the biography “ends up becoming a chronicle of peevishness and petulance”:

The man we encounter here is a ninny, a whinger, a tantrum-throwing dilettante, “hopelessly thin-skinned. . . naïve and resentful.” He is a preening snob, “keenly sensitive to violations of protocol,” intolerant of “opinions contrary to his own,” and horribly misled about the extent of his own talents.

All of this was way before the most recent season of The Crown.

Edited December 3, 2020 by qtpye

[Growsonwalls]

7 minutes ago, qtpye said:

I actually have no problem with his divorce but hate this:

Although Prince Charles has taken a stand on important environmental issues such as sustainability and climate change, he has fallen pitifully short on animal-welfare issues. Whereas Prince Harry chose not to participate in a grouse hunt recently, Prince Charles has gone so far as to call fox hunting “romantic.” Animal rights is a growing topic of concern for Brits, so he is not going to win supporters by holding fast to those ideas—and being vocal about them.

Oh it's even worse. Letters to Tony Blair leaked:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prince-charles-tony-blair-fox-hunting-letters-published-information-commissioner-public-read-royal-wales-a7856651.html

Quote

He told a private gathering in 2002: “If the Labour government ever gets around to banning fox hunting, I might as well leave this country and spend the rest of my life skiing.”

He's not a likable man. Usually flattering royal biographers are only able to summon the barest pretense of respect when writing about him. But the idea of the monarchy is pretty absolute -- it makes no allowances for whether one is likable. If you buy into the idea of the monarchy then it's not a popularity contest. If only likable monarchs were allowed then perhaps only George VI would pass muster. Victoria wasn't likable. George V wasn't likable.

I think Charles' reign will most likely resemble that of Edward VII. He only reigned for 9 years and was not a likable man, although his wife Alexandria was very loved. Charles will not have a long reign. 

Edited December 3, 2020 by Growsonwalls

[Arynm]

6 hours ago, Umbelina said:

From the massively expensive jewels Charles is giving her (his and her favorites are those from her famous ancestor who also committed adultery with a King)

If we want to be fair, the jewels belong to the Crown, which means that they don't own a fair bit of them. The Queen Mum got a huge bequest called the Greville jewels from a friend and I think the family owns those. So while Camilla might be able to wear all the jewels, she can't actually keep them. She can keep the teeth (I think)

I can't tell you how much I want to see the jewel vault of the Royal family. I bet it is beyond anything I can even imagine.

Edited December 3, 2020 by Arynm
wrong info

[Umbelina]

31 minutes ago, Arynm said:

If we want to be fair, the jewels belong to the Crown, which means that they don't own a fair bit of them. The Queen Mum got a huge bequest called the Greville jewels from a friend and I think the family owns those. So while Camilla might be able to wear all the jewels, she can't actually keep them. She can keep the teeth (I think)

I can't tell you how much I want to see the jewel vault of the Royal family. I bet it is beyond anything I can even imagine.

I could be wrong, I read it in a magazine that he is searching high and low for them around the world, and buying them for her.

Charles has always been amused by Camilla’s connection with his great-great-grandfather’s mistress. So much so that with the help of fine jeweller Wartski, the Prince has embarked on a quest to buy up Alice Keppel’s jewellery collection.

The Prince reputedly paid £100,000 for a tiara that once belonged to Camilla’s great-grandmother. Charles had the diamonds remade into a necklace and earrings.

From their illicit courtship days — when she was still married to Andrew Parker Bowles and the Prince was engaged to Lady Diana Spencer — Charles has enjoyed showering Camilla with gifts.

He enjoys finding items with a theme, such as Van Cleef & Arpels Magic Alhambra drop earrings, a symbol of luck; a Forties’ ballerina brooch by the same company; and two of their signature dragonfly brooches.

The Duchess is happiest when she is wearing the special things her husband has found for her. A third item from the Keppel collection — the Keppel ruby and diamond tiara, bought by Edward VII in Paris — is now in Camilla’s possession and, although very fragile, is one of her favourite pieces.

The combination of rubies and diamonds represent enduring love, and their significance is certainly not lost on Camilla. And neither is its impact on the Saudis.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2962503/Duchess-Dazzle-Camilla-s-amassed-treasure-trove-jewels-thanks-Charles-Saudis.html

[Growsonwalls]

Well right on cue: an article in the WaPo about Prince Charles' portrayal on The Crown written by Ben Judah:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/12/02/crown-casts-prince-charles-villain-heres-why-its-wrong/

 

 

[Arynm]

I wonder what happens to all this jewelry when she dies. I think any gifts, like from the Saudi's stay with the Crown. The rest though, who else but the Royal family can wear stuff like that? If the Parker-Bowles get it, my guess is it's sold for parts, except for things that can reasonably be worn by "regular folk"  so to speak. Not many can get away with the tiara's and necklaces that Camilla wears.

[Growsonwalls]

Just now, Arynm said:

I wonder what happens to all this jewelry when she dies. I think any gifts, like from the Saudi's stay with the Crown. The rest though, who else but the Royal family can wear stuff like that? If the Parker-Bowles get it, my guess is it's sold for parts, except for things that can reasonably be worn by "regular folk"  so to speak. Not many can get away with the tiara's and necklaces that Camilla wears.

The jewels belong to the Crown. There are pieces that royal members can pick out as favorites (like Diana and Kate both like the Lover's Knot tiara) but these pieces belong to the Crown. AFAIK they cannot be purchased.

[Umbelina]

19 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

Well right on cue: an article in the WaPo about Prince Charles' portrayal on The Crown written by Ben Judah:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/12/02/crown-casts-prince-charles-villain-heres-why-its-wrong/

 

 

I'm not subscribing to read this.  Anything interesting?  At this point I would be thousands in to subscribe to everything out there.

16 minutes ago, Arynm said:

I wonder what happens to all this jewelry when she dies. I think any gifts, like from the Saudi's stay with the Crown. The rest though, who else but the Royal family can wear stuff like that? If the Parker-Bowles get it, my guess is it's sold for parts, except for things that can reasonably be worn by "regular folk"  so to speak. Not many can get away with the tiara's and necklaces that Camilla wears.

Her personal jewels from Charles will go to her estate.

Those massive jewels the Middle East countries are presenting to her belong to the Crown.  

[Arynm]

12 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

The jewels belong to the Crown. There are pieces that royal members can pick out as favorites (like Diana and Kate both like the Lover's Knot tiara) but these pieces belong to the Crown. AFAIK they cannot be purchased.

AFAIK not everything belongs to the Crown. Gifts to the Royals go into the coffers of the Crown, but other pieces belong to the Queen herself.

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/will-kate-middleton-inherit-queen-elizabeths-entire-jewelry-collection.html/

This article gets into it a bit. Maybe not the best article, but it's late.

[Growsonwalls]

1 minute ago, Umbelina said:

I'm not subscribing to read this.  Anything interesting?  At this point I would be thousands in to subscribe to everything out there.

It basically says that Charles' politics are way more progressive than those of the traditionally extremely conservative monarchy.

Quote

 

Over the decades, I’ve come to admire Charles’s politics: from privately opposing the Iraq War to publicly supporting Palestinian rights in Bethlehem and routinely warning about climate breakdown.

Does any of this matter? There’s a temptation in liberal Britain to laugh off the monarchy and dismiss it as if it hardly exists. But I’ve always thought that Tom Nairn, the prophetic Scottish Marxist thinker, was correct to warn the Left to take Buckingham Palace more seriously. The monarchy, wrote Nairn, is like an “enchanted glass” that invites Brits to see ourselves in it.

In this, the moods and personality of the sovereign matter. The monarch runs the Church of England, meets weekly with the prime minister and sets the tone for the British upper classes — all of it exercising a powerful gravitational pull over British life.

 

 

[JudyObscure]

Yes, the article says Charles is current and on point in a lot of his political and environmental views. I think that relates to the outcry over the latest season of The Crown.  In the past seasons they did show things like Philip's adultery but always with a "probably but possibly not" view.  We saw the Queen seeming to be unfeeling, but then with a private tear rolling down her cheek. This last season resulted in a totally black view of Charles being cruel to the country's beloved Diana and social media blowing up with absolute hatred toward him based largely on things no one ever witnessed like him yelling at her.  It's one thing to show a bad side or a mistake made, balanced by  some sympathetic scenes (like Philip at school)  but that didn't happen this season. 

Now people are calling Charles a vile adulterer who should never be king, yet those same people would have never suggested that  Diana couldn't  be queen because of her serial adultery.

Charles is simply not the whimpering, stooping weasel he's been portrayed. During the assassination attempt in 1994 he was completely cool throughout. 

I once stood about three feet away from Charles and Diana when they visited Arlington Cemetery during a trip to the U. S. They stopped to put a wreath on the one British soldier buried there.  I had suspected they might do that, so my husband and I were waiting there, the only people other than the horse back guards.  He stood straight and tall and both he and Diana turned and smiled at us as they were leaving the area.  Yes, he too can be friendly and caring!  My husband was more impressed with him than her.

 

[Roseanna]

15 hours ago, Umbelina said:

It's much different than a politician for many reasons.

I don't judge politicians on the basis of their private life (if they haven't committed a crime) but on the basis of their policy and abilities. 

[merylinkid]

8 hours ago, Umbelina said:

I could be wrong, I read it in a magazine that he is searching high and low for them around the world, and buying them for her.

Charles has always been amused by Camilla’s connection with his great-great-grandfather’s mistress. So much so that with the help of fine jeweller Wartski, the Prince has embarked on a quest to buy up Alice Keppel’s jewellery collection.

The Prince reputedly paid £100,000 for a tiara that once belonged to Camilla’s great-grandmother. Charles had the diamonds remade into a necklace and earrings.

From their illicit courtship days — when she was still married to Andrew Parker Bowles and the Prince was engaged to Lady Diana Spencer — Charles has enjoyed showering Camilla with gifts.

He enjoys finding items with a theme, such as Van Cleef & Arpels Magic Alhambra drop earrings, a symbol of luck; a Forties’ ballerina brooch by the same company; and two of their signature dragonfly brooches.

The Duchess is happiest when she is wearing the special things her husband has found for her. A third item from the Keppel collection — the Keppel ruby and diamond tiara, bought by Edward VII in Paris — is now in Camilla’s possession and, although very fragile, is one of her favourite pieces.

The combination of rubies and diamonds represent enduring love, and their significance is certainly not lost on Camilla. And neither is its impact on the Saudis.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2962503/Duchess-Dazzle-Camilla-s-amassed-treasure-trove-jewels-thanks-Charles-Saudis.html

Oh no, Husband with money buys expensive jewelry for his wife.    Look, he loves her.    So he is doing sweet things for her.    He has the money to do it.    It's not like he's stealiing these jewels to give to her.    and it's not like he would use the money he is spending on the jewels to build public housing or something.    It is is what it is.     Now should he have TRIED to do the same with Diana?   Yes.   But he didn't.   

As for Camilla having a designer wardrobe now, what she's supposed to wear sackcloth and ashes?    Like it or not, she is married to the Prince of Wales.   Her job is to represent the Crown at public appearances.   She has to dress appropriately for her job.   Otherwise, boy would we hear about it.   

I don't like Charles or Camilla.    But getting on their cases for living the lifestyle of the Prince and Princess of Wales is just looking for things to complain about.   There are actual things to complain about.   Like Charles being Emo Charles which makes the idea of being so whiny as King annoying.

but he most likely will meddle in politics much more than his mother did.   She was extremely non-confrontational.   Also her mother and grandmother who were Queen consorts, not Queen Regnants told her over and over again that her job was to smile and be nice.   Charles on the other hand thinks his job is to use his position to make the world a better place.   He does TRY to do that too.   Like making Highgrove "natural" and "organic" except for the pool and the tennis court, of course.    His model town of Poundbury in his Duchy is another example.    So earnest, so scientific, so damn overbearing in his imposing his ideas on others.   

[Ohiopirate02]

9 hours ago, Arynm said:

I wonder what happens to all this jewelry when she dies. I think any gifts, like from the Saudi's stay with the Crown. The rest though, who else but the Royal family can wear stuff like that? If the Parker-Bowles get it, my guess is it's sold for parts, except for things that can reasonably be worn by "regular folk"  so to speak. Not many can get away with the tiara's and necklaces that Camilla wears.

From what I can gather, Elizabeth inherited a lot of jewelry from her mother and grandmother which make up her personal jewelry collection.  She has gifted some pieces already to Anne and Fergie while loaning others to her granddaughters.  I know she has a tradition of meeting with her granddaughters and future granddaughters-in-law before their weddings to allow them to choose their wedding jewelry.  I assume that when she passes those pieces will be bequeathed to those women.  

When it comes to the gifts Elizabeth has received over the years, I do wonder what will happen to them.  I know that some pieces in Elizabeth's collection are made up of stones gifted to her but she paid for the settings.  

[Growsonwalls]

1 hour ago, JudyObscure said:

Now people are calling Charles a vile adulterer who should never be king, yet those same people would have never suggested that  Diana couldn't  be queen because of her serial adultery.

"Adultery" is such a shockingly dated term anyway. 

It sounds appropriate for The Scarlet Letter, not 2020.

[PeterPirate]

56 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

"Adultery" is such a shockingly dated term anyway. 

It sounds appropriate for The Scarlet Letter, not 2020.

One could say the same thing about the phrase "Anointed by God".

[chaifan]

1 hour ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

From what I can gather, Elizabeth inherited a lot of jewelry from her mother and grandmother which make up her personal jewelry collection.  She has gifted some pieces already to Anne and Fergie while loaning others to her granddaughters.  I know she has a tradition of meeting with her granddaughters and future granddaughters-in-law before their weddings to allow them to choose their wedding jewelry.  I assume that when she passes those pieces will be bequeathed to those women.  

 

I hate to be a skeptic, but I have to wonder if any of Elizabeth's personal jewels are actually gifted to non-linear female family members, but rather to their husbands.  With both Charles and Andrew's marriages ending in divorce, my guess is that jewelry is gifted to direct descendants only.  So Kate herself isn't the owner of the jewelry, but William is, just in case of a divorce.  But Beatrice and Eugenie would be rightful owners of gifted jewelry.  Again, this is just speculation, but if I were Queen that's certainly what I would do.  Maybe make some special exceptions, but as a rule, that's what I'd do.

I know Diana had a lot of jewelry in her estate, which I think all went to William and Harry.  But it didn't have to.  She could have sold it or gifted it to whoever she wanted.  I know there's no guarantee that a blood line royal will hold on to these things, but I'd guess it's more of a safe bet. 

 

[Ohiopirate02]

6 minutes ago, chaifan said:

I hate to be a skeptic, but I have to wonder if any of Elizabeth's personal jewels are actually gifted to non-linear female family members, but rather to their husbands.  With both Charles and Andrew's marriages ending in divorce, my guess is that jewelry is gifted to direct descendants only.  So Kate herself isn't the owner of the jewelry, but William is, just in case of a divorce.  But Beatrice and Eugenie would be rightful owners of gifted jewelry.  Again, this is just speculation, but if I were Queen that's certainly what I would do.  Maybe make some special exceptions, but as a rule, that's what I'd do.

I know Diana had a lot of jewelry in her estate, which I think all went to William and Harry.  But it didn't have to.  She could have sold it or gifted it to whoever she wanted.  I know there's no guarantee that a blood line royal will hold on to these things, but I'd guess it's more of a safe bet. 

 

AFAIK Elizabeth has not gifted any real jewelry since giving Fergie her set for the wedding.  Maybe she gave Sophie jewels, but I'm not sure.  She loans her jewels now.  When it comes to what she has in her will, we will find out someday.  Or not, because that's how the Windsor-Mountbattens roll.  She does seem to be a bit gunshy about giving them, but bequeathing her jewels to William or Harry instead of Catherine or Meghan on the off chance of a future divorce is cold.  There is also nothing stopping the men from making sure those jewels are the property of their wives anyway.  The fact is jewelry of that magnitude is rarely sold; it is passed down.  The only member of that family I could see trying to offload the jewels for ready cash would be Fergie, and I think it's safe to say she won't be getting any more.  

[SailorGirl]

16 hours ago, Arynm said:

If we want to be fair, the jewels belong to the Crown, which means that they don't own a fair bit of them. The Queen Mum got a huge bequest called the Greville jewels from a friend and I think the family owns those. So while Camilla might be able to wear all the jewels, she can't actually keep them. She can keep the teeth (I think)

I can't tell you how much I want to see the jewel vault of the Royal family. I bet it is beyond anything I can even imagine.

When I went to London, I did the Tower of London and the Crown jewels. You can't take any pictures, unfortunately. Even seeing it in person it is hard to imagine and take in -- it just doesn't seem possible that its REAL! That was pre-Crown so what really got me then was the coronation regalia -- I want to go see it again with the wider understanding of what's what, who wears it, etc. 

Its one door in, one door out, and a slow-moving sidewalk that rotates you around. And if you try to stop for even a second the guards are on it. I wanted to loop it 3 or 4 times but unfortunately I was on a bit of a schedule and I don't even know if they let you go around more than once. 

Edited December 3, 2020 by SailorGirl

[Umbelina]

8 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

Now people are calling Charles a vile adulterer who should never be king, yet those same people would have never suggested that  Diana couldn't  be queen because of her serial adultery.

Queen Consort is quite different than King.  Aside from that, we all know why a young rejected bride and new mother was understandably driven to find love and companionship elsewhere, when her husband had always loved another woman, and spent most of his time with Camilla.  It's the same thing as saying "Diana hated the country" instead of "Diana knew that all of their "friends" and associates in the country around her home knew about Charles and Camilla, and indeed their long affair.  Heck, even Balmoral was tainted, since his grandmother also loaned Charles her home there, to he could cheat on his wife.

 

7 hours ago, Roseanna said:

I don't judge politicians on the basis of their private life (if they haven't committed a crime) but on the basis of their policy and abilities. 

You are the one who compared Charles to politicians.  I'm just pointing out that politicians are both chosen by the people, and can be thrown out by the people.  

Kings?  Not so much.

7 hours ago, merylinkid said:

Oh no, Husband with money buys expensive jewelry for his wife.    Look, he loves her.    So he is doing sweet things for her.    He has the money to do it.    It's not like he's stealiing these jewels to give to her.    and it's not like he would use the money he is spending on the jewels to build public housing or something.    It is is what it is.     Now should he have TRIED to do the same with Diana?   Yes.   But he didn't.   

As for Camilla having a designer wardrobe now, what she's supposed to wear sackcloth and ashes?    Like it or not, she is married to the Prince of Wales.   Her job is to represent the Crown at public appearances.   She has to dress appropriately for her job.   Otherwise, boy would we hear about it.   

I don't like Charles or Camilla.    But getting on their cases for living the lifestyle of the Prince and Princess of Wales is just looking for things to complain about.   There are actual things to complain about.   Like Charles being Emo Charles which makes the idea of being so whiny as King annoying.

but he most likely will meddle in politics much more than his mother did.   She was extremely non-confrontational.   Also her mother and grandmother who were Queen consorts, not Queen Regnants told her over and over again that her job was to smile and be nice.   Charles on the other hand thinks his job is to use his position to make the world a better place.   He does TRY to do that too.   Like making Highgrove "natural" and "organic" except for the pool and the tennis court, of course.    His model town of Poundbury in his Duchy is another example.    So earnest, so scientific, so damn overbearing in his imposing his ideas on others.   

To the first part, those quotes came up in context of the "makeover" to sell Camilla to the public, the press campaign that has been happening since before their marriage to make Camilla more palatable as Queen.  Of course a husband or lover can buy things for the woman he loves.  This however, has been also part of a longer PR routine to "sell" Camilla to her eventual "subjects."  (Including the new teeth, new hair, new charities, much fancier clothing than she has ever worn or preferred, and massive jewels.)  That may or may not be true, I think it is, but arguments can certainly be made for or against the PR "SEE!  Camilla can be Queen!" push.

Totally agree with the second part.  I'm glad Charles cares about climate change for example, not so pleased with his mumbo jumbo about the mind healing illnesses crap.

7 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

From what I can gather, Elizabeth inherited a lot of jewelry from her mother and grandmother which make up her personal jewelry collection.  She has gifted some pieces already to Anne and Fergie while loaning others to her granddaughters.  I know she has a tradition of meeting with her granddaughters and future granddaughters-in-law before their weddings to allow them to choose their wedding jewelry.  I assume that when she passes those pieces will be bequeathed to those women.  

When it comes to the gifts Elizabeth has received over the years, I do wonder what will happen to them.  I know that some pieces in Elizabeth's collection are made up of stones gifted to her but she paid for the settings.  

The jewels are so interesting.  My question is, and I realize this may be a dumb question, but here goes.  

What does "those jewels belong to the CROWN" mean?  

Does that mean that if the people decide they don't want a CROWN anymore, they go to the government general fund?  That essentially, if there is no monarch, thus no crown anymore, they belong to the people?  Obviously not to individuals, but say, to go into the health care fund, or other government funded agencies that benefit the people of Britain?

6 hours ago, Growsonwalls said:

"Adultery" is such a shockingly dated term anyway. 

It sounds appropriate for The Scarlet Letter, not 2020.

PETERPIRATE nailed it, so I bow to his comment.

6 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

One could say the same thing about the phrase "Anointed by God".

Indeed.  Honestly, does a single person left in the UK and it's "commonwealth" seriously believe that GOD chooses the monarch, or that the monarch has a direct link to God?  

Will they honestly believe that when God chooses Charles (of all the people in the commonwealth) as his anointed King and CEO of His church?

23 minutes ago, SailorGirl said:

When I went to London, I did the Tower of London and the Crown jewels. You can't take any pictures, unfortunately. Even seeing it in person it is hard to imagine and take in -- it just doesn't seem possible that its REAL! That was pre-Crown so what really got me then was the coronation regalia -- I want to go see it again with the wider understanding of what's what, who wears it, etc. 

Its one door in, one door out, and a slow-moving sidewalk that rotates you around. And if you try to stop for even a second the guards are on it. I wanted to loop it 3 or 4 times but unfortunately I was on a bit of a schedule and I don't even know if they let you go around more than once. 

The closest I've come is photos, which are astounding enough, and then the Smithsonian, which has a fraction of the major jewels in the Queen's possession.  So many of those jewels, and the countries that bestowed them on her predecessors have sad tales too.  

[Growsonwalls]

 

16 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Queen Consort is quite different than King.  Aside from that, we all know why a young rejected bride and new mother was understandably driven to find love and companionship elsewhere, when her husband had always loved another woman, and spent most of his time with Camilla.  It's the same thing as saying "Diana hated the country" instead of "Diana knew that all of their "friends" and associates in the country around her home knew about Charles and Camilla, and indeed their long affair.  Heck, even Balmoral was tainted, since his grandmother also loaned Charles her home there, to he could cheat on his wife.

But: according to the Church of England, adultery is adultery. Equally sinful. So Diana was guilty of "adultery" as well.

I just think that it is completely unrealistic to expect the monarchy to be beacons of morality in their personal lives. It has never ever been the case -- royal mistresses might be the world's SECOND oldest profession. There will be more royal mistresses after Camila. William apparently has one on the sly -- Kate's former friend. 

[Ohiopirate02]

11 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

 

The jewels are so interesting.  My question is, and I realize this may be a dumb question, but here goes.  

What does "those jewels belong to the CROWN" mean?  

Does that mean that if the people decide they don't want a CROWN anymore, they go to the government general fund?  That essentially, if there is no monarch, thus no crown anymore, they belong to the people?  Obviously not to individuals, but say, to go into the health care fund, or other government funded agencies that benefit the people of Britain?

 

I believe Elizabeth has 3 collections of jewels--The Crown Jewels ie. the biggies only brought out for special occasions like coronations and possibly the jewels given as gifts from for other countries; then I will call them the House of Windsor Jewels comprising of the jewelry purchased by Elizabeth's ancestors from Victoria to present; and finally her own personal collection of pieces gifted to her in her lifetime, or she bought, or what she received from her mother.  The first collection belongs to the state, the second one is what Charles and his heirs will get but will most likely be kept together going from Charles to William to George.  The final collection is what she will divvy up in her will.  All three collections are impressive in their own right, but the only one that would stay with the government would be the Crown Jewels--the ones on display at the Tower of London.  The jewels which were gifts from foreign nations would be fought over by lawyers with the crux of the issue being was this a gift to Elizabeth or a gift to the nation.  Because even if the people of Great Britain choose to get rid of the monarchy, Charles would still be loaded because of the peerage.  He (or William) has pockets deep enough to drag it out for decades.  

[Umbelina]

2 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

 

But: according to the Church of England, adultery is adultery. Equally sinful. So Diana was guilty of "adultery" as well.

I just think that it is completely unrealistic to expect the monarchy to be beacons of morality in their personal lives. It has never ever been the case -- royal mistresses might be the world's SECOND oldest profession. There will be more royal mistresses after Camila. William apparently has one on the sly -- Kate's former friend. 

Hey, I'm not the one saying the King will be the supreme head of the church, and be anointed by God!  THEY are!

Again, comparing the past, where only a very few people knew about the sexual exploits of monarchs, to today's world, with internet and everyone having a cell phone or camera handy?  It's just not helpful.  Now, EVERYONE knows, so in no way does saying "This always happened with the Royals!" relate to modern times, and easy videotape and recordings of actual phone sex by the future King.

Frankly, that should be another reason to abolish this sham.  "Hey, they were ALWAYS assholes that didn't keep their commandments, or vows, or care about the church they run!" is not really an argument for keeping the show going.

For me, it boils down to the selfish cruelty and entitlement, but then I've never believed in monarchs being "of God" let alone God's rep on earth.  Charles is, to me, a spoiled, out of touch, slightly creepy, cad, who picked a very young virgin and proceeded, with heartless cruelty, to embarrass her, and make a mockery of her one and only love, and her marriage.  He's just callous and jealous, and petty, and a dick.

I don't care about adultery if both parties agree and know what they are getting into.  I am far more bothered by the lies, deceit, and embarrassment involved.  It's just cruel, IMO.

 

[JudyObscure]

52 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

To the first part, those quotes came up in context of the "makeover" to sell Camilla to the public, the press campaign that has been happening since before their marriage to make Camilla more palatable as Queen. 

Just like the makeover and press coverage Diana Spencer got to make her more palatable as the wife of the Prince.  When she first appeared she was a slouchy round faced girl with drab brown hair wearing gathered cotton skirts that didn't hide her pot belly.  A  whole lot of  palace money and expert advice went into turning her into a fashion icon.

[Umbelina]

3 minutes ago, JudyObscure said:

Just like the makeover and press coverage Diana Spencer got to make her more palatable as the wife of the Prince.  When she first appeared she was a slouchy round faced girl with drab brown hair wearing gathered cotton skirts that didn't hide her pot belly.  A  whole lot of  palace money and expert advice went into turning her into a fashion icon.

Interesting.

From my memory the press and the people loved Diana from the beginning.  She was young, shy, kind, and from a suitable family, without a blemish on her name.  I honestly don't remember a single criticism, people seemed to be thrilled that Charles was finally getting married, and to such a sweet and acceptable girl.

Of course once married, she needed new clothing, etc. to represent the crown, as they all do.

[Ellaria]

18 hours ago, Arynm said:

I can't tell you how much I want to see the jewel vault of the Royal family. I bet it is beyond anything I can even imagine.

Having seen the crown jewels in the Tower of London, I completely agree. I would love to see the collection of tiaras and necklaces.

10 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

Wow.  That's pretty heavy stuff.  If a person like that ever gets elected in America I hope we have the good sense to vote his or her ass out of office.  

Very nice!

17 hours ago, Growsonwalls said:

It basically says that Charles' politics are way more progressive than those of the traditionally extremely conservative monarchy.

I've read that as well. However, I'm never quite sure if we see/hear the "real" Charles or a carefully constructed version of him.

IMO, Charles has always been a bit of an anachronism. He often seems out of step with the "modern world" whether that's due to his sheltered upbringing, his own personal choices or the image that the media has chosen to portray. I think that he is a complex man lacking self-awareness. Frankly, I don't find him to be interesting in any way. And that's my problem with the demands that "The Crown" be declared as fiction. My opinion of Charles has not been altered by watching S4. 

20 hours ago, qtpye said:

Although Prince Charles has taken a stand on important environmental issues such as sustainability and climate change, he has fallen pitifully short on animal-welfare issues. Whereas Prince Harry chose not to participate in a grouse hunt recently, Prince Charles has gone so far as to call fox hunting “romantic.” Animal rights is a growing topic of concern for Brits, so he is not going to win supporters by holding fast to those ideas—and being vocal about them.

THIS! I hate hunting. These two positions are widely divergent. He claims to be an environmentalist and conservationist yet refers to hunting as "romantic." Can't have it both ways. Again, his stance on these matters points to his complexities and not in a good way. He seems unwilling to let go of what I believe are the cruel, barbaric practices of his ancestors. 

 

[AZChristian]

2 hours ago, SailorGirl said:

When I went to London, I did the Tower of London and the Crown jewels. You can't take any pictures, unfortunately. Even seeing it in person it is hard to imagine and take in -- it just doesn't seem possible that its REAL! That was pre-Crown so what really got me then was the coronation regalia -- I want to go see it again with the wider understanding of what's what, who wears it, etc. 

Its one door in, one door out, and a slow-moving sidewalk that rotates you around. And if you try to stop for even a second the guards are on it. I wanted to loop it 3 or 4 times but unfortunately I was on a bit of a schedule and I don't even know if they let you go around more than once. 

When we went there, we went on the beefeater escorted tour.  Our guy had quite a sense of humor.  He said, "When you get to the end of the moving sidewalk, ask the guard if you can try on the crown.  He'll let you.  Everybody does it."  And such a twinkle he had in his eye when he said it.

[Growsonwalls]

Well Tina Brown was considered a great royal writer and here's an old article about Diana's complex relationship with the press and BRF:

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/10/books/review/Weber-t.html?searchResultPosition=13

Honestly I think a lot of the press were bowled over by Diana's looks and outward charm. Even her most ardent defenders (like her butler Paul Burrell) admitted that in private she was a difficult, complex person. 

[qtpye]

1 hour ago, Umbelina said:

Hey, I'm not the one saying the King will be the supreme head of the church, and be anointed by God!  THEY are!

Again, comparing the past, where only a very few people knew about the sexual exploits of monarchs, to today's world, with internet and everyone having a cell phone or camera handy?  It's just not helpful.  Now, EVERYONE knows, so in no way does saying "This always happened with the Royals!" relate to modern times, and easy videotape and recordings of actual phone sex by the future King.

Frankly, that should be another reason to abolish this sham.  "Hey, they were ALWAYS assholes that didn't keep their commandments, or vows, or care about the church they run!" is not really an argument for keeping the show going.

For me, it boils down to the selfish cruelty and entitlement, but then I've never believed in monarchs being "of God" let alone God's rep on earth.  Charles is, to me, a spoiled, out of touch, slightly creepy, cad, who picked a very young virgin and proceeded, with heartless cruelty, to embarrass her, and make a mockery of her one and only love, and her marriage.  He's just callous and jealous, and petty, and a dick.

I don't care about adultery if both parties agree and know what they are getting into.  I am far more bothered by the lies, deceit, and embarrassment involved.  It's just cruel, IMO.

 

The truth of the matter is Charles has been problematic and the whole monarchy would be saved if he would gracefully bow out. He has been problematic way before this series came out and should just happily retire with the woman he can not live without and be free to do his horrible fox hunting all day (which he finds romantic).

Being the King of England is a privilege not a right.

[Growsonwalls]

10 minutes ago, qtpye said:

The truth of the matter is Charles has been problematic and the whole monarchy would be saved if he would gracefully bow out. He has been problematic way before this series came out and should just happily retire with the woman he can not live without and be free to do his horrible fox hunting all day (which he finds romantic).

Being the King of England is a privilege not a right.

William and Kate are avid hunters. So is Harry.

Edited December 3, 2020 by Growsonwalls