Charles and Camilla 2

[Loveday]

6 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

Yeah badly maintained buildings are one thing. But even if the houses are crumbling shacks there will be no garbage on the rugs and no vomit  anywhere unless whoever lives there put it there and refused to clean up after themselves.

Exactly. If the contracted garbage collection services aren't showing up to do what they were hired to do, and toilets are backing up and need plumbing services, that's one thing, and the military higher-ups need to sort it out. But the filth inside the actual rooms these men live in is on them and no one else.  Certainly not the King.

I don't know. It just seems very odd to me that so much garbage is piling up, AND toilets and urinals are backing up, AND elevators and stairwells are full of piss, AND rooms are absolutely disgusting, ALL AT THE SAME TIME, and NONE of it is the fault of the people who live there. People who are in the MILITARY, which has always, in every country I've ever read about, maintained a pretty high standard of cleanliness thanks to frequent inspections. My husband was in the military for nearly 30 years, active and reserve, and he STILL maintains military precision in organization and cleanliness of his personal spaces (his closet, dresser, office, garage, etc) years after leaving the service. I tell him I'm not going to inspect, but he just shrugs and says it's ingrained. Fortunately for him, I keep our bathrooms very clean, or I have no doubt I'd catch him in there one day with an old toothbrush, scrubbing the grout around the base of the toilet. 

 

Edited April 3, 2023 by Loveday
riffle

[Jackie3]

17 minutes ago, Loveday said:

Exactly. If the contracted garbage collection services aren't showing up to do what they were hired to do, and toilets are backing up and need plumbing services, that's one thing, and the military higher-ups need to sort it out. But the filth inside the actual rooms these men live in is on them and no one else.  Certainly not the King.

 

Yes, let's blame the victims. Not the incredibly wealthy landlords. 

The privates should keep their slum neat and tidy.

If the King and Queen want respect, they need to treat their people with respect.

Edited April 3, 2023 by Jackie3

[AmazonGrace]

If their elevators reek of urine they might have some friends who should lay off the booze.

 

[Jackie3]

1 hour ago, AmazonGrace said:

If their elevators reek of urine they might have some friends who should lay off the booze.

 

British aristocrats, OTOH, are light drinkers. Plus, they have their maids to clean up their piss.

Here's what they live with, just 300 yards from BP. Hundreds of soldiers, who marched in QE2's funeral procession. Maybe this is why there is pee on the floor.

 

Spoiler

 

The beloved Queen allowed her soldiers to live like this. And her son does, too!

 

I guess I'm just not a fan of slumlords. But I can respect that others hold a different opinion.

Edited April 4, 2023 by Coconut Flan
spoiler for the squeamish

[Mrs Ms]

Maybe my reading comprehension failed, but I understood that the extra now left in the sovereign grant after various people got axed was going to be used to pay everyone else still being paid by it a higher wage? So while King Charles still won’t be in charge of the state of the building (the firms with the contracts still will be) the annual income of the “poor slobs” will improve?

[rosamundi]

5 hours ago, Mrs Ms said:

Maybe my reading comprehension failed, but I understood that the extra now left in the sovereign grant after various people got axed was going to be used to pay everyone else still being paid by it a higher wage? So while King Charles still won’t be in charge of the state of the building (the firms with the contracts still will be) the annual income of the “poor slobs” will improve?

These aren't employees of the Royal Household, they're normal soldiers on normal soldiers' pay. Any pay rise would be set centrally by the Ministry of Defence.

(I'm not familiar with Armed Forces pay scales, they may get extra allowances for stuff like living in London, ceremonial duties, and so on, but those would also be set centrally).

Edited April 4, 2023 by rosamundi

[prayawaythefundie]

9 hours ago, Mrs Ms said:

Maybe my reading comprehension failed, but I understood that the extra now left in the sovereign grant after various people got axed was going to be used to pay everyone else still being paid by it a higher wage?

Your reading comprehension is fine, Trolletta‘s isn‘t. 

[rosamundi]

12 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

If their elevators reek of urine they might have some friends who should lay off the booze.

 

Given that if the Daily Mail said grass was green and sky was blue, I'd go outside and check, I was wondering if some of the photos were the aftermath of a party of some description, before everyone got to work making the place spotless, and the Daily Mail took them and twisted them into that article.

[Jackie3]

This new portrait of Charles cost taxpayers 8 million pounds. He could easily have afforded to pay for it himself. He chose to let the taxpayers do so.

I wonder if those young men living in rat-infested moldy apartments resent this? 

Edited April 5, 2023 by Jackie3

[Jackie3]

Hard to believe that Charles is supposed to be a "servant" of the nation.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2023/apr/05/revealed-royals-took-more-than-1bn-income-from-controversial-estates-king-charles-queen-duchies-cornwall-lancaster

[Alisamer]

Gee, they throw trash on the floor and don't clean the bathrooms... wonder why there are rats and mold?

It is a mystery.

[Jackie3]

5 hours ago, Alisamer said:

Gee, they throw trash on the floor and don't clean the bathrooms... wonder why there are rats and mold?

It is a mystery.

A slumlord lover! They always blame the victims.

We don't know how many of those young men threw trash on the floor. I guess you are assuming it's 100%? I think there many different types of young men there:

1. Some who are neat and tidy

2. Some who have given up because of the black mold, clogged toilets and lack of trash pickup

3. Some who are slobs.

I think they ALL deserve decent living conditions. In fact, I believe all humans deserve decent housing.

 

It's odd. Charles is a billionaire. He was an adulterer. He is a climate hypocrite. He was not a terribly attentive father. 

Yet he still expects the country to pay for his coronation AND volunteer at it? Can't he take a few of his billions and pay the people who are working that day? It's not a good look. Terrible optics. (At least Harry and Meghan aren't costing taxpayers a cent.)

 

 

Britains will be calling Camilla their Queen. Like Queen Elizabeth.

I wonder why Prince Phillip was never called King, but Camilla--a home-wrecking adulterer--gets this title? 

Doesn't seem right, somehow. Especially since it goes against QE2's wishes. She said she hoped Camilla would be called Queen Consort. 

I wonder why Camilla (and Charles) weren't content with Queen Consort? Sounds pretty fancy to me. She gets the same perks either way.

It's also odd that no one is twisting themselves into a knot saying how awful she is, when she did some pretty awful things. 

From the palace, circa 2005

 

[rosamundi]

BBC News - King Charles supports study into Royal Family slavery links https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65200570

[viii]

18 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

I wonder why Prince Phillip was never called King, but Camilla--a home-wrecking adulterer--gets this title? 

I wasn't going to do this but it's bugging me. Elizabeth is the royal born and can't be outranked. A king will always outrank a queen, which is why Phillip wasn't ever titled King Phillip. It has nothing to do with their morals (or lack thereof). 

[rosamundi]

3 hours ago, viii said:

I wasn't going to do this but it's bugging me. Elizabeth is the royal born and can't be outranked. A king will always outrank a queen, which is why Phillip wasn't ever titled King Phillip. It has nothing to do with their morals (or lack thereof). 

Women always take the feminine form of their husband's title, so Queen Elizabeth II was known as Her Royal Highness The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh from their marriage on 20 November 1947 to her accession to the throne on 6 February 1952.

However, men never take the masculine form of their wife's title, so if Lady Louise Windsor marries a man who doesn't hold a title in his own right, he won't become Lord Thing, she would become The Lady Louise Windsor, Mrs [Husband's Name], similar to how Beatrice and Eugenie are styled now.

The reason for this can basically be boiled down to sexism with a bit of pragmatism thrown in. Queens Regnant were women in a patriarchal society which saw women become their husband's property at marriage, and all her worldly goods became his. When the worldly goods include a country and the associated trappings of power, there needs to be something to ensure the Queen still holds some power over her husband, so the husband never receives the title which would put him above her.

Edited April 6, 2023 by rosamundi

[viii]

None of that changes my post. He was never going to be called King Phillip, because a king always outranks the queen. 

[rosamundi]

4 minutes ago, viii said:

None of that changes my post. He was never going to be called King Phillip, because a king always outranks the queen. 

I wasn't trying to change your post, I was just adding an explanation as to why, because I thought people might be interested or curious.

[SoSoNosy]

3 hours ago, viii said:

None of that changes my post. He was never going to be called King Phillip, because a king always outranks the queen. 

I read that many times, in many places where people asked the same question.

[Seahorse Wrangler]

11 hours ago, viii said:

I wasn't going to do this but it's bugging me. Elizabeth is the royal born and can't be outranked. A king will always outrank a queen, which is why Phillip wasn't ever titled King Phillip. It has nothing to do with their morals (or lack thereof). 

If Diana and Charles hadn't divorced then Diana would have been Queen Diana regardless of the number of marriages that she was alleged to have wrecked,  wouldn't you agree Mr Will Carling?

[prayawaythefundie]

I find this regular use of „homewrecker“ and „adulterer / adulteress“ to discredit people very weird in 2023. Here we are saying the monarchy is outdated but that‘s not? Being unfaithful will hurt your partner and your family but it does not make you a danger to society. Wanna be be woke? Don‘t use ancient insults.

[AmazonGrace]

It's not like Harry was a virgin up until his wedding night and Meghan was divorced as well.... but sure, let's slutshame Camilla for having had a previous relationship.

We are all adulterers in the sight of God, I have heard that he frowns upon it if you even look at a hot guy and think he's hot. Something about gouging your eye out.

[prayawaythefundie]

1 hour ago, AmazonGrace said:

We are all adulterers in the sight of God, I have heard that he frowns upon it if you even look at a hot guy and think he's hot. Something about gouging your eye out.

Thank god I‘m an atheist. 😎

[Mrs Ms]

7 hours ago, prayawaythefundie said:

I find this regular use of „homewrecker“ and „adulterer / adulteress“ to discredit people very weird in 2023. Here we are saying the monarchy is outdated but that‘s not? Being unfaithful will hurt your partner and your family but it does not make you a danger to society. Wanna be be woke? Don‘t use ancient insults.

It’s like the few times people tried to insult me by calling me a bastard. I was so confused why the marriage status of my parents had anything to do with me. My parents ended up separating before I was born, so it was a double moot point. And I was never once insulted by the slur. 

[Jackie3]

9 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

It's not like Harry was a virgin up until his wedding night and Meghan was divorced as well.... but sure, let's slutshame Camilla for having had a previous relationship.

We are all adulterers in the sight of God, I have heard that he frowns upon it if you even look at a hot guy and think he's hot. Something about gouging your eye out.

Meghan cheated on her husband with a married man? Link, please?

Meghan conducted an affair for years, knowing she was hurting a much-younger woman? Link?

Premarital sex/a divorce=adultery? Not in my book. The first two are normal things that any person might do. The second shows bad character.

"We are all adulterers in the sight of God," Not my god. You are really stretching it here! The analogy just doesn't work. I've got more pride than to cheat, and I'd never slink around and hide in bushes, waiting for my married partner irregardless of who I hurt.

Just think. A few years back, the future Queen of England was hiding in bushes, waiting for a quickie.

I'm afraid it will be a struggle if you try to equate the Sussex's past actions with Camilla's years long affair with Charles. Camilla's just in a different category! Same with Charles! They are cheaters.

 

Edited April 7, 2023 by Jackie3

[tabitha2]

I also never understood why calling someone a love child is an insult..that sounds like a very good thing to me.