Charles and Camilla 2

[Jackie3]

8 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

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

Nothing wrong with being a love child. 

Being a cheater, however. . . . and a cheater who is head of the Church of England. . . that's problematic.

Edited April 8, 2023 by Jackie3

[just_ordinary]

The whole Queen and Prince husband isn’t exclusive to the UK as well. Denmark and the Netherlands did the same thing.

I really don’t get why people care about if someone cheats or has an affair. Non of anyone’s business but the people involved. Should we exclude all those people from prestigious jobs? I mean the rate of people cheating is around 50%. Do they need to have several affairs or is one enough? Does it matter if it happened when they are young? 

[prayawaythefundie]

Cheating in the bushes! So wild! All the half-decent people obviously cheat in a bed. I love learning those things on FJ. 😉

[IrishCarrie]

In this day and age, with everything that's going on in the world, I'm genuinely bewildered to realise there are still people that will name-call consenting adults for having sex.

If they're (a) consenting, (b) adults, and (c) neither of them are in a committed relationship with you, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!!!!!

And - personal opinion - any name calling is childish AF. Grow up and use your words. Explain to us why you're so personally affected by other people's actions that you feel it's ok to resort to the behaviour of a poorly-raised toddler.

[viii]

I will agree with all of that EXCEPT when it comes to religious leaders, even if they are just figureheads. If someone is having an affair, it’s none of my business. However, if a pastor at a local church is having an affair, I’m going to take issue with it. When you’re in a place of religious leadership, you’re automatically called to a higher standard in behaviour. If you’re going to make a living judging people and telling them what God thinks they should with their lives, your own life better be pretty damn sparkling clean. 

So Charles and Camilla don’t really bother me because Charles wasn’t the head of the Church of England. His mother was and she didn’t have any affairs. And now that Charles IS head of the church, I don’t see him having any affairs. Soooo problem solved. 

[VGL]

Henry VIII had Parliament declare him head of the Church of England because the Pope wouldn't grant him an annulment from his wife so he could marry his mistress.

[prayawaythefundie]

37 minutes ago, viii said:

So Charles and Camilla don’t really bother me because Charles wasn’t the head of the Church of England. His mother was and she didn’t have any affairs. And now that Charles IS head of the church, I don’t see him having any affairs. Soooo problem solved. 

I was going to say this if you hadn‘t. I agree that it would be a problem if he cheated now as head of the Church of England but his past transgressions should be seen as that, especially by a religion that preaches forgiveness.

As for Camilla, she isn‘t even a religious leader now.

42 minutes ago, VGL said:

Henry VIII had Parliament declare him head of the Church of England because the Pope wouldn't grant him an annulment from his wife so he could marry his mistress.

True but today‘s Church of England does condemn adultery.

[Manda]

On 4/4/2023 at 6:55 PM, Jackie3 said:

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.

That's a lie put out by someone with a grudge.  

[Loveday]

9 minutes ago, Manda said:

That's a lie put out by someone with a grudge.  

Apparently--and I'm sure Trolletta will correct me sternly and snarkily if I'm wrong--the British government has earmarked 8 million pounds in order to provide public spaces with copies of the Alastair Barford portrait of Charles. Public spaces meaning government offices, schools, courts, etc. Not at all something Charles has any control over, as he only reigns, he doesn't rule. It would be nice if he offered to pay part or all of that 8 million, but it's not something he has to do. Of course, it's also not something the British government has to do, it's just tradition, which Great Britain has excelled at for centuries. Maybe Trolletta's ire is a bit misplaced; it should be put at the feet of Parliament, not Charles.

[Coconut Flan]

The government did the same for Elizabeth, but she isn't hated by the Meghan brigade. As you said, it's tradition.

[Jackie3]

2 hours ago, Manda said:

That's a lie put out by someone with a grudge.  

I WISH it was a lie. It seems like it should be al ie, doesn't it? But it is true:

https://www.londonworld.com/read-this/king-charles-iii-portrait-schools-councils-police-stations-to-receive-paintings-costing-taxpayer-ps8million-4090655

For the record, I think it was an equal waste of money for Elizabeth. 

Quote

it's just tradition, which Great Britain has excelled at for centuries. Maybe Trolletta's ire is a bit misplaced; it should be put at the feet of Parliament, not Charles.

It was also their tradition to take over countries, steal their goods and enslave people. They excelled at that tradition, too.

Edited April 9, 2023 by Jackie3

[prayawaythefundie]

1 hour ago, Coconut Flan said:

The government did the same for Elizabeth, but she isn't hated by the Meghan brigade. As you said, it's tradition.

And I‘ve always wondered why she isn‘t. If the Sussexes were treated so abhorrently by the BRF, how does the matriarch get a pass? Although, to be fair, Trolletta did and still does „criticize“ Elizabeth.

Edited April 9, 2023 by prayawaythefundie

[Jackie3]

I don't understand why Americans object to a British monarch being criticized. Or why an American gets upset if "British protocol" is broken. Why is that anything to you? Why do you care if someone doesn't back King Charles 100%, or at all? It's a bit sad to be so invested in another country's royals doings. Almost like it's a Disney fantasy that's being disturbed.

[rosamundi]

15 hours ago, Loveday said:

Apparently--and I'm sure Trolletta will correct me sternly and snarkily if I'm wrong--the British government has earmarked 8 million pounds in order to provide public spaces with copies of the Alastair Barford portrait of Charles. Public spaces meaning government offices, schools, courts, etc. Not at all something Charles has any control over, as he only reigns, he doesn't rule. It would be nice if he offered to pay part or all of that 8 million, but it's not something he has to do. Of course, it's also not something the British government has to do, it's just tradition, which Great Britain has excelled at for centuries. Maybe Trolletta's ire is a bit misplaced; it should be put at the feet of Parliament, not Charles.

Yes, a lot of "civic spaces" (town halls, etc) have a portrait of the reigning monarch somewhere prominent, and places which act "in the name of the Monarch" may have the monarch on display somewhere. Every court dispenses justice "in the name of the King," every City becomes a city by grant of a royal charter. So it would be reasonable for those places to have a copy of the official portrait on display, and for central government to organise and pay for the sending of those. There's also embassies and overseas "soft power" sites like the British Council which will all need one.

Having the portrait on display in schools is a bit weird, though, in my opinion. Bit cultish. It's not something I remember from my schools growing up, in my standard state schools with no links to the monarch.

[Ozlsn]

18 hours ago, Loveday said:

Apparently--and I'm sure Trolletta will correct me sternly and snarkily if I'm wrong--the British government has earmarked 8 million pounds in order to provide public spaces with copies of the Alastair Barford portrait of Charles. Public spaces meaning government offices, schools, courts, etc

Geez the cost of photocopying has gone up a bit. 😉

I'm sure we'll end up with a couple here, most likely in the embassy and consulates, as well as some more royalist sites (the RSLs maybe). Probably less common though than pictures of QE2 - nearly every dusty local hall where I grew up had a picture of her (which probably dated from her coronation) hanging up somewhere. Wonder what will/has happened to them all, I doubt they'll be replaced with KC3's pic.

[tabitha2]

On 4/6/2023 at 2:26 PM, rosamundi said:

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.

All this begs the Question: what if the the future say the future King of Denmark or Prince George falls  in love with and wants to marry a man? Will the spouse be Prince consort? What if one of the young European Heiresses apparent is a lesbian and takes a wife?   It’s going to happen sooner rather than later. 

[rosamundi]

54 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

All this begs the Question: what if the the future say the future King of Denmark or Prince George falls  in love with and wants to marry a man? Will the spouse be Prince consort? What if one of the young European Heiresses apparent is a lesbian and takes a wife?   It’s going to happen sooner rather than later. 

In the UK, the College of Arms has laid out the rules for heraldry.

As far as I can tell,the rules about titles haven't been formalised yet. Parliamentary bills were presented in the 2012-2013 session and the 2013-2014 session but failed to pass both times. I haven't been able to find a bill presented later than 2014, but I could just not be looking hard enough.

Lord Mountbatten is the first hereditary peer that I'm aware of who is in a same sex marriage and his husband doesn't have a title.

There are a number of life peers who are in same sex marriages and their spouses don't have titles, so it seems that the convention is that the spouse doesn't receive a courtesy title, but I'm not sure if that's just convention or if it carries the force of law.

And of course, when it comes to royal titles, there's always "I'm the King, I can do what I like" and they could do a few things:

• Say that the spouse would also be known as the Duke of Place
• Create the spouse the Duke of Different Place in their own right (so for example the Royal would be known as The Duke of Hampshire and their spouse the Duke of Dorset)
• Give the spouse the right to use one of the subsidiary titles (similar to Camilla being Duchess of Cornwall when King Charles was Prince of Wales).
• The spouse could receive the title of Prince Consort, so we'd have His Majesty the King and His Royal Highness the Prince Consort, or Her Majesty the Queen and Her Royal Highness the Princess Consort, or similar.

Edited April 10, 2023 by rosamundi

[TN-peach]

I thought the family looked nice at the Easter service yesterday.  I personally was glad to see Sarah Chatto there.  Her presence always makes me smile. 

[Loveday]

3 hours ago, Ozlsn said:

Geez the cost of photocopying has gone up a bit. 😉

I'm sure we'll end up with a couple here, most likely in the embassy and consulates, as well as some more royalist sites (the RSLs maybe). Probably less common though than pictures of QE2 - nearly every dusty local hall where I grew up had a picture of her (which probably dated from her coronation) hanging up somewhere. Wonder what will/has happened to them all, I doubt they'll be replaced with KC3's pic.

🤣 I thought the same when I read about it. I'm sure it cost far, far less back in 1953 or so to put Elizabeth's portraits up in civic spaces. But perhaps not so much less when we adjust for inflation, I don't know. I have a hard enough time figuring that out in dollars, much less pounds! 

But at least we now know where that 8 million pound figure came from. It didn't cost the taxpayers that much for the portrait to be painted; I don't know how much The Illustrated London News paid Alastair Barford to paint the King, but THEY paid for its creation, not the British taxpayers. The 8 mil is a separate issue. I do wish that if Someone is going to throw out facts and figures they would at least get the details and context right. I suppose when you get all your news from the Daily Fail, The Stun, and dodgy internet sources all the time, you start thinking and speaking in their sort of headlines. 🙄 

As for all the portraits of Elizabeth II that will need to be removed, maybe they can be auctioned off to help defray the cost of the new portraits? There are likely a lot of monarchists out there who would love to have one. Possibly a bit undignified to auction off the Queen, but better than consigning her to a dusty storeroom or throwing her in the bin!

[Jackie3]

23 hours ago, TN-peach said:

I thought the family looked nice at the Easter service yesterday.  I personally was glad to see Sarah Chatto there.  Her presence always makes me smile. 

Interesting that Andrew was there. So he's reclaimed a place as a royal doing royal things?  Charles has given the OK for that?

 

 

I wonder why Charles himself didn't pay the 8 million to distribute his picture. Why not offer to pay for it himself? He inherited 650 million last year, and didn't pay any tax on it either.

In fact, why wasn't the image sent by email, and the schools and offices could print it up on a large printer and frame if (if they wanted to)

I'll bet the NHS could find a million uses for that 8 million.

[AmazonGrace]

If you wanted a coronation emoji there is one now. And I guess even if you didn't want it.   https://nypost.com/2023/04/10/king-charles-coronation-has-an-official-emoji-now-how-to-use-it/

[Jackie3]

It seems the public really can't get excited about spending tens of millions on the coronation of C&C. They have such a shady past and their behavior to Diana -- by any account -- was so terrible. 

If QE2 REALLY cared about continuing the monarchy, she would have 1) let Charles marry Camilla and 2)  given up the throne 30 years ago.

The public really wants a youngish king with a spouse and family, and that's what they would have gotten--Charles and Camilla, in their early, 40's, with a handful of children. That would have played into these fantasies that seem so important to the public. 

Instead, you have an old, unattractive man and his equally unattractive wife, with their lifetime of bad behavior and sneaking around because they couldn't marry when they wanted to marry. There are no kids because it was too late by the time they could marry. People struggle to find good things to say about them.

I think the Queen made a mistake by hanging onto her power for so long. 

[Alisamer]

On 4/10/2023 at 10:43 AM, Loveday said:

🤣 I thought the same when I read about it. I'm sure it cost far, far less back in 1953 or so to put Elizabeth's portraits up in civic spaces. But perhaps not so much less when we adjust for inflation, I don't know. I have a hard enough time figuring that out in dollars, much less pounds! 

I suspect that adjusting for inflation it probably cost MORE back in 1953. Wide format digital printing is pretty easy these days, but back in the day not so much. Even color copies when they first came out were quite expensive per page.

[Jackie3]

15 minutes ago, Alisamer said:

I suspect that adjusting for inflation it probably cost MORE back in 1953. Wide format digital printing is pretty easy these days, but back in the day not so much. Even color copies when they first came out were quite expensive per page.

Exactly! Send interested schools a digital image and they can print it themselves. That saves taxpayers 8 million pounds, which perhaps could be used on hospitals. Or education. Or the elderly

[just_ordinary]

On 4/10/2023 at 4:10 PM, TN-peach said:

I thought the family looked nice at the Easter service yesterday.  I personally was glad to see Sarah Chatto there.  Her presence always makes me smile. 

Have to disagree. Too much blue. Especially the Walses. Geez, we know blue is your favourite colour. There are other ways to achieve a harmonious and matching picture of a family unit. You don’t have to put them all in 99% blue. And the bright blue coat with the hat was just too much. Too long and too rectangular silhouette, too bright against everyone else. Nothing against a strong colour for this occasion but this looked bad.