Charles and Camilla

[Jackie3]

I like how Jeremy Clarkson is saying he is "horrified" about what happened. It's almost like he had nothing to do with it.

"How could such a thing have happened? I have no idea! It must be Meghan. She wrote this about herself!"

[AmazonGrace]

He is horrified that he's getting backlash for being a vile toad and it might be bad for business.

[Jackie3]

1 minute ago, AmazonGrace said:

He is horrified that he's getting backlash for being a vile toad and it might be bad for business.

He actually forgot to apologize in his apology. 

Quote

"Meghan, though, is a different story. I hate her," Clarkson said. "Not like I hate [Scottish First Minister] Nicola Sturgeon or [serial killer] Rose West. I hate her on a cellular level."

Quote

"You are making people want to kill me. You are making me scared" -- Meghan Markle

I wonder why it's OK to terrify a woman this way?

[Jackie3]

A Member of Parliament is speaking out against Jeremy Clarkson.

 

I think it's safe for Charles and Camilla to speak out too. Their silence is telling. 

[Loveday]

6 hours ago, Lollipopgirl said:

 The only good thing I can think of about him is he once punched Piers Morgan in the face. Morgan was the editor of a newspaper at the time and reported on Clarkson’s infidelity. They have since made up and we’re both at the lunch!

 

 

Well, I'll give him props for that much. But nothing else.😆 Thank you for the quick bio. He sounds like a real charmer.

[AmazonGrace]

18 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

 

I wonder why it's OK to terrify a woman this way?

Who is saying that it's OK

Seems to me that a lot of people have come out and said it's not OK.

[Loveday]

On 12/19/2022 at 11:18 AM, Jackie3 said:

 

Nope. The Daily Mail called it her party. The narrative is actually true.

Of all the newspapers in all the world, the Daily Fail saying something doesn't make it true. But of course you know that, don't you? 🙄

[Jackie3]

36 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

Who is saying that it's OK

Seems to me that a lot of people have come out and said it's not OK.

They've said Jeremy Clarkson is not ok. No one is saying a word about her other abusers. So, yes, they are saying it's OK.

They are piling on the bandwagon of rejecting Jeremy. Many other vile writers slandered Meghan, but they aren't being criticized at the moment.

Jeremy's not her only vile hater. There's tons of media who say things almost as bad. No one has said a word about them, because it's not fashionable to do so yet. Jeremy's is the current target.

 

[noseybutt]

People. Read the article. The Daily Mail says Ewan Venters was the host. The title is clickbait.

[Jackie3]

3 minutes ago, Loveday said:

Of all the newspapers in all the world, the Daily Fail saying something doesn't make it true. But of course you know that, don't you? 🙄

You are very anxious to defend a woman who hangs out with Jeremy Clarkson, for some reason.  Camilla hangs out with many of Meghan's abusers, and you feel that's OK? 

You believe it was someone else's party, but the Daily Mail, for no reason, pretended it was Camilla's. OK.

It was Camilla's party, and no one but you (her fan!) has challenged that.

Even assuming Camilla knew nothing and was an innocent victim. . . If I walked into a party and saw two evil men who have ruthlessly been insulting my DIL, I'd explain to the host that I could not stay. While that might be slightly rude, it would be FAR rude to my DIL  to stay and hobnob with them. 

 

 

 

[AmazonGrace]

That is why a screenshot was posted and not the link.

[Jackie3]

Just now, AmazonGrace said:

That is why a screenshot was posted and not the link.

 I was online when Mail edited the page.  It was actually pretty amazing. The Palace must have ordered it. They want to pretend, now, that she was an innocent invitee. How evil.

Luckily, the internet is forever, and many people have screenshots of the original page.

So the new argument is that the screenshot is faked? Grasping at straws!

[noseybutt]

2 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

That is why a screenshot was posted and not the link.

Meh. The clickbait issue is super annoying and even some of the most mainstream press do it. I knew what the Daily Mail said because they are the source being quoted by the American press. Daily Mail has gotten better at dodging the law suits. 😂

[Loveday]

10 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

You are very anxious to defend a woman who hangs out with Jeremy Clarkson, for some reason.  Camilla hangs out with many of Meghan's abusers, and you feel that's OK? 

You believe it was someone else's party, but the Daily Mail, for no reason, pretended it was Camilla's. OK.

It was Camilla's party, and no one but you (her fan!) has challenged that.

Even assuming Camilla knew nothing and was an innocent victim. . . If I walked into a party and saw two evil men who have ruthlessly been insulting my DIL, I'd explain to the host that I could not stay. While that might be slightly rude, it would be FAR rude to my DIL  to stay and hobnob with them. 

 

 

 

You do realise you sound like a raving lunatic, right? Bless your heart.

[Jackie3]

1 hour ago, Loveday said:

You do realise you sound like a raving lunatic, right? Bless your heart.

Maybe so.  I'll agree with you there.

I'll let you continue defending Jeremy Clarkson. That seems to be the norm, which makes me proud to be outside it!

 

[Jackie3]

Wow Camilla and Jeffrey have been friends for quite a while!

 

[Loveday]

9 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

Maybe so.  I'll agree with you there.

I'll let you continue defending Jeremy Clarkson. That seems to be the norm, which makes me proud to be outside it!

 

And that right there PROVES what a sick individual you really are. Not one person here on this site has said anything in defense of that disgusting man, and yet here you are claiming otherwise. You really do have mental health issues; I hope you find help, and soon. You need it.😕

[AmazonGrace]

22 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

 I was online when Mail edited the page.  It was actually pretty amazing. The Palace must have ordered it. They want to pretend, now, that she was an innocent invitee. How evil.

Luckily, the internet is forever, and many people have screenshots of the original page.

So the new argument is that the screenshot is faked? Grasping at straws!

No, that's not the argument, and you know it.

The Daily Mail front page changes all the time when there are new stories so that's not shocking

The title of the article has not changed from your screenshot

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11547817/Dame-Judi-Dench-Piers-Morgan-Claudia-Winkleman-join-Camilla-star-studded-Mayfair-lunch.html

You just handily forgot to mention the part that does not support your argument.

[Lollipopgirl]

22 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

 

You believe it was someone else's party, but the Daily Mail, for no reason, pretended it was Camilla's. OK.

It was Camilla's party, and no one but you (her fan!) has challenged that.

 

 

 

I challenged that. I told you exactly whose party it was. For the last time it was NOT Camilla’s party. I’m no massive royalist and I hate the Daily Mail, but for the benefit of sensible discussion let’s stick to the facts. The Daily Mail does not print many of those on a daily basis.

[Bethella]

8 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

 

I hear what you are saying.

Camilla got an invite to a party. She had no idea who'd be there. She'd never have attended if she knew Jeremy Clarkson and other angry journalists would be there.

To her surprise, she saw Jeremy Clarkson and others like him at this party! She was incredibly surprised and upset.

She tries to attend parties with people who are caring, inclusive and tolerant.   In this case, though, Camilla was too surprised and polite to leave.  So she stayed, trapped and unhappy, desperately wanting to go. .

Although the documentary had just dropped, the subject of Meghan and Harry did not come up at the party.  No one made jokes about Harry and Meghan. They knew Camilla would cut them short if they did. She doesn't tolerate any jokes about her family members, even ones she doesn't like. 

Now that Jeremy has  aired his violent fantasies about Meghan, Camilla has cut him dead. After all, she works to. protect  women against violence.  So she has no tolerance for horrible words like his, and she felt Clarkson's apology was a joke.

She has issued a statement denouncing Jeremy Clarkson, saying his ugly words, "Have no place in a world where so many women are the victims of violence."

A reporter asked if it had been her party, or whether she'd just been invited. She dismissed this question with an impatient wave.

"Whether I am a guest or a hostess," she said firmly, "I will not attend an event with people who insult my DIL.  I did it last week and I was wrong. I apologize."

I generally try to ignore the troll- but don’t we have rules against fan fiction? 

[Loveday]

9 hours ago, Bethella said:

I generally try to ignore the troll- but don’t we have rules against fan fiction? 

Why yes, yes we do, and that post definitely fits the definition. To a T. 

[Jackie3]

13 hours ago, Bethella said:

I generally try to ignore the troll- but don’t we have rules against fan fiction? 

There is definitely a rule against fan fiction.

[Jackie3]

Has Camilla issued a statement denouncing what Jeremy Clarkson said? Has the Palace done so? 

If not, Camilla is standing on the side of misogyny. A fine advocate for women! Does she believe it's OK to display misogyny against some women but not others?

"You are making people want to kill me," --Meghan Markle.

"Disgusting and very real threats" were made against Meghan -- Neil Basu, Chief of Royal Protection at the Metropolitan polic.

 

Edited December 26, 2022 by Jackie3

[Mama Mia]

I’m seeing a lot of anger online regarding the Church of England’s recent statement that they will not perform same sex marriages, and that their teaching is that “marriage is between one man and one woman for life”

Obviously ironic considering the origins of said church. But also people questioning how Charles is then eligible to be the head of the Church, for obvious reasons. Does he get a special pass? I understand churches generally allow members that don’t live by their teachings — but being the prime figure head representing the church seems like it would be a stretch. 

On a related note something  that I’ve noticed is that the entire scenario of pure and sheltered Diana being considered the most suitable match, and experienced Camilla being not acceptable would play out completely different  today.
 Can you imagine the perception in 2023  if 32 year old worldly Charles, sought out a naive 19 year old, whose own Uncle assured the world was a certified virgin? And trotted that painfully awkwardly shy girl out for photos? The groomer calls would be through the roof. 

Contrast that to a 32 year old Charles marrying his 33 year old long term partner. Sure they’d been on and off before, perhaps she’d even had a divorce, but they seemed well suited, had been together for years appropriately aged, mature enough to marry but still young enough to start a family. 

Which would play better? Absolutely Wild the difference a few decades can make. 
 

 

 

 

 

[hoipolloi]

19 minutes ago, Mama Mia said:

Does he get a special pass?

Yes, because -- thanks to Henry VIII -- Charles is the reigning monarch and titular head of the Anglican Church.