Charles and Camilla

[Coconut Flan]

31 minutes ago, Melbelle said:

There is some discussion amongst Royal watchers, that perhaps the Royal family interpreted the 1917 Letters Patent, as well as those issued in 2012 prior to Prince George's birth, as meaning that Archie and Lili are not entitled to status as Prince and Princess.  Jane Barr of From Berkshire to Buckingham on IG lays out the case for how this could work.  She is an attorney, though in the US, not the UK, and has been covering Catherine and the Royals for many years now.  This could account for Meghan's confusing conversation with Oprah about how her kids were denied Prince/Princess etc.

Additionally, the Royal Family's website has been updated to reflect the new order of succession and their new titles, yet Harry and Meghan's children remain listed as Master Archie and Miss Lilibet.  

https://fromberkshiretobuckingham.substack.com/p/why-i-think-archie-and-lily-are-not 

That's fascinating how so many people assumed it would be retroactive, but after reading her explanation it does seem logical that it wouldn't be.  By the time they were born, they were already falling pretty far down the line of succession and given Harry and Meghan leaving and Meghan's strong stand against the kids going to UK schools, it makes a lot of sense.

[noseybutt]

27 minutes ago, Melbelle said:

There is some discussion amongst Royal watchers, that perhaps the Royal family interpreted the 1917 Letters Patent, as well as those issued in 2012 prior to Prince George's birth, as meaning that Archie and Lili are not entitled to status as Prince and Princess.  Jane Barr of From Berkshire to Buckingham on IG lays out the case for how this could work.  She is an attorney, though in the US, not the UK, and has been covering Catherine and the Royals for many years now.  This could account for Meghan's confusing conversation with Oprah about how her kids were denied Prince/Princess etc.

Additionally, the Royal Family's website has been updated to reflect the new order of succession and their new titles, yet Harry and Meghan's children remain listed as Master Archie and Miss Lilibet.  

https://fromberkshiretobuckingham.substack.com/p/why-i-think-archie-and-lily-are-not 

My take as a non-royal watcher.

Meghan as a working royal makes as much sense as a non-celibate priest. I don't think she believes in the mission and she sure as heck is not down with the colonial history.

But this is also her family and I can see trying to navigate the interpersonal relationships. And I can see her failing miserably because----Yeah. How does this even work? Even if every individual involved had zero personality flaws and stellar social skills, it's governed by ancient history and super confusing rules. You would have to really be a true believer in it all.
 

Wait. Am I on the wrong thread?

 

[Seahorse Wrangler]

There's some speculation about who King Charles will appoint as Chancellors of State. It's traditional to have four, the ruler's consort, the Heir apparent/presumptive and then the next in the line of succession once over 21. So it should be Queen Camila, Prince William, then the next two Princes, but both Harry and Andrew as are no longer working royals. The next adults in the line of succession are Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie. 

I imagine that the Princess of Wales would take one of the roles but would the king prefer the safe and familiar hands of the Princess Royal or the Earl of Wessex over a more private citizen.

[QuiverFullofBooks]

1 hour ago, Seahorse Wrangler said:

There's some speculation about who King Charles will appoint as Chancellors of State. It's traditional to have four, the ruler's consort, the Heir apparent/presumptive and then the next in the line of succession once over 21. So it should be Queen Camila, Prince William, then the next two Princes, but both Harry and Andrew as are no longer working royals. The next adults in the line of succession are Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie. 

I imagine that the Princess of Wales would take one of the roles but would the king prefer the safe and familiar hands of the Princess Royal or the Earl of Wessex over a more private citizen.

Apparently it was the consort plus four others prior to Prince Philip’s death. Some publications have said that means Beatrice is definitely in. But if Charles passes over Andrew and Harry, he might decide that he just gets to choose (assuming this isn’t enshrined in law), so it could be William, Anne, Edward, and um… well, probably Beatrice. 

[Jackie3]

9 hours ago, noseybutt said:

You do realize that Meghan Markle would likely take offense to being compared to Elizabeth Eckford?

 

I'll bet Meghan would take offense at some of your posts, too! 

[noseybutt]

7 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

I'll bet Meghan would take offense at some of your posts, too! 

Of course she would. I do not exist to come to her defense. 

Edited September 11, 2022 by noseybutt

[KnittingOwl]

On 9/10/2022 at 4:12 PM, QuiverFullofBooks said:

Apparently it was the consort plus four others prior to Prince Philip’s death. Some publications have said that means Beatrice is definitely in. But if Charles passes over Andrew and Harry, he might decide that he just gets to choose (assuming this isn’t enshrined in law), so it could be William, Anne, Edward, and um… well, probably Beatrice. 

Is Beatrice based in the UK or in Italy? And does that make much of a difference? Not sure how often they have meetings. 

[Jackie3]

12 hours ago, noseybutt said:

Of course she would. I do not exist to come to her defense. 

Neither do I! We are the same that way. What was the point of your comment, then?

On 9/10/2022 at 2:02 PM, Melbelle said:

There is some discussion amongst Royal watchers, that perhaps the Royal family interpreted the 1917 Letters Patent, as well as those issued in 2012 prior to Prince George's birth, as meaning that Archie and Lili are not entitled to status as Prince and Princess.

OMG, they're babies. Leave them alone. Are you proud of picking on a 1 and 3 year old? I can hear the hunger in your hope that they are excluded.

Their lives would probably be better without meaningless titles, anyway. I bet H&M hope the children DON'T have any titles. 

[viii]

Well, they have titles, but it’s up to their parents on whether not they use them until they’re eighteen. 

[Jackie3]

On 9/10/2022 at 2:37 PM, noseybutt said:

Meghan as a working royal makes as much sense as a non-celibate priest. I don't think she believes in the mission and she sure as heck is not down with the colonial history.

 

Do you mean the royals (except Meghan) are OK with the colonial history? I can't believe they are.

[viii]

52 minutes ago, Jackie3 said:

Do you mean the royals (except Meghan) are OK with the colonial history? I can't believe they are.

I can believe it; they benefit hugely from it lol. 

[Jackie3]

On 9/10/2022 at 1:00 PM, Coconut Flan said:

This has nothing to do with racism and you know it.

Oh, no, nothing about racism.

A BBC broadcaster posted this picture of Archie as a chimpanzee. "Royal Baby Leaves Hospital" is the title.

 

He was not apologetic, essentially saying "Can't you take a joke?"

Quote

"Sorry my gag pic of the little fella in the posh outfit has whipped some up," Baker wrote. 

Quote

Danny Baker, a veteran broadcaster and journalist in the U.K., earlier apologized for his "stupid unthinking gag," which he claimed was not meant to have any racist undertones.

Nope, not about racism at all. 

Edited September 12, 2022 by Jackie3

[Jackie3]

No, it's not about racism.

[Jackie3]

No, it was never about racism.

(Texts from UK Independence party's leaders' gf)

[AmazonGrace]

Yes, Jackie. If you can come up with  examples of definite racists doing racism that are unrelated to the discussion at hand it proves that everything else is about racism too. Good job.

Quote

As part of his proclamation, the new monarch had to sign official documents, allowing us to get a glimpse at his signature, which he signed Charles R. This was likewise followed by his wife, the Queen Consort, who signed as Camilla R., William also signed the document, but signed as William P., with the 'p' standing for Prince.

The Queen would sign documents with Elizabeth R., with the 'r' standing for 'regina', which is Latin for queen; likewise Charles' 'r' stands for 'rex', which is Latin for King.

https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/20220910150736/king-charles-new-signature-revealed/

I just find it funny that monarchs sign their name like kindergarterners

[Jackie3]

Never about racism at all!

An article written by Rachel Johnson, who is Boris Johnson's sister and a Daily Mail columnist.

.

Even Ms. Johnson admits this article, written in 2016, was eugenicist and racist. She added,   "So let's forget it."

 

[Chiari]

No one is denying that there were racist attacks on Meghan because there were and still are and are absolutely horrible, what people are saying is that not every critique of Meghan has to do with her being African American. 

If we are (rightfully so) condemning racists let's also not forget about Harry and all the things he said and did. 

[tabitha2]

Most people now rightfully  have her on ignore so Jackalope just starts arguing by herself about a matter no one is contesting and That takes talent I will admit. It’s a pathetic talent but still.

Edited September 12, 2022 by tabitha2

[Destiny]

The past, present or future racism of Charles and Camilla (NOT random BBC presenters or anyone else) is relevant to this thread. Meghan is not. Take it to her thread.

Edited September 12, 2022 by Destiny
formatting and clarity

[hoipolloi]

If C3 is truly interested in reforming the monarchy & improving its status, there are some things he could right away -- as quickly as making his older son the PoW. 

For example, he could renounce the Doctrine of Discovery. TBF, only the Pope can truly rescind it but C3ʻs renunciation would speed the long overdue rescission of this vile proclamation. 

 

[AmazonGrace]

More of the insane ancient royal customs: Charles III owns British swans now and If he got peckish he could claim one to eat.

 https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/britains-swans-get-new-owner-with-royal-succession-2022-09-12/

[hoipolloi]

On 9/10/2022 at 3:56 AM, Coconut Flan said:

Charles made a mistake marrying Diana.  That's been thoroughly rectified and as far as the public can see he has a solid marriage with Camilla.  There is nothing he can do to change the past.  I've kind of always thought if Diana had lived and gone on to a life with someone like Dodi the world might have an entirely different impression of her.

Iʻm listening to the multi-part podcast on the Charles-Diana saga from Youʻre Wrong About. The glorious snark aside, thereʻs no doubt that C & D were were incredibly screwed up human beings from the get-go. It would never have worked out for the two of them and Camilla is a better spouse for Charles all the way around. Hard to say if Dodi or someone else would have made Diana happier. I agree that she might have turned out quite differently -- possibly a latter-day Princess Margaret figure. 

I did like the podcastersʻ suggestion though that Charles resembles the guys in AITA who whine about their girlfriends or wives being upset after they do something really awful. 

[noseybutt]

On 9/11/2022 at 10:57 PM, viii said:

I can believe it; they benefit hugely from it lol. 

Pretty much. I suspect most find the colonial history disquieting and would much rather take on duties within the UK than, say, the Caribbean. But being uncomfortable versus truly understanding the anger or apathy towards the Royal family in some parts of the world is two different things. It’s tough to live in the bubble that royal life demands and grasp the mood on the ground. 

Then there is the leap from understanding to possibly rectifying and that seems to be years off. The Koh-i-noor is not going anywhere. Where would it even go?

(Also, as an American it is truly rich for me to  point out sins of the empire because we have behaved very similarly and have our own troubled historical legacies. There is an emotional attachment to the monarchy among my English friends that I will never fully grasp. They talk about it in complicated and nuanced ways. Mourning the queen because of her grace and duty and stability for the country, but also with the understanding that the entire world is not necessarily mourning with them in the same way. I spent part of my childhood in a former colony and conversations around the Royal family were avoided in polite company because of the strength of opposing opinions. It’s not the specific people but what the monarchy represents.)

[Jackie3]

13 hours ago, noseybutt said:

Also, as an American it is truly rich for me to  point out sins of the empire because we have behaved very similarly and have our own troubled historical legacies.

It's OK to point out the sins of both countries. In fact, it's a good thing.

One problem with the royals is that they pretend that their shameful history is not shameful. William did just that in his tone-deaf trip to the Caribbean. 

Glorifying the royals is kind of like glorifying Southern plantation life. There's a part of US society that does that (and I don't care how "nuanced" their feelings are, it's still wrong). But there's a HUGE part of British society that does the same about the British empire. "Nuanced" feelings or not, it is still wrong.

[noseybutt]

Tone-deaf = ableist language

And it is wrong. I don't care how nuanced you are about it.