She has taken her role seriously and behaves with kindness towards the people and discretion regarding the Royal Family.
Posted on 02/05/2022 4:36:52 PM PST by SeekAndFind
“She has been a wonderful Queen...”
She has met with legends of history in her time as Queen. Manymany books to come.
Yes, because kings and queens were always so moral and chaste before this!
/s.
Judging the Royal Family by watching The Crown is like judging Shakespeare by reading Classic Comics. There is little accurate reflection other than costumes and sets.
Thank you for that background! She sounds so much more interesting than Diana, and rather too good for that idiot Charles.
And he’s a liberal elitist to boot.
The British Sovereign is also the head of the Church of England. By tradition, a prince in the direct line of succession was supposed to marry a virgin, which is the Christian ideal but that typically was only expected of women. Also, she was to be of a noble family, so that she would have been raised with the complex etiquette and diplomatic standards, and some experience with managing many servants without identifying with them, since the royal households are like museums, are used to host other heads of state, and take a lot of staff to maintain. Also, the virginity would avoid the scandal of some other man telling some tabloid how the Queen is in the sack, or her making a comparison to someone else's sexual prowess, etc.
So, between Camila having ditched Charles for another man and the royal tradition staring him in the face as he became well into his 30s, the family looked around for someone "suitable" based on those parameters. The wealthy in England, and historically in most advanced cultures, would often arrange marriages to be sure that property was not lost, or to form political alliances with other nations. (Although Elizabeth appears to have married for love, notwithstanding that Philip was from a noble family.) So Elizabeth and Philip encouraged Charles to marry someone like Diana.
Before the rise of birth control, the restrictions on women were much more severe than on men, and especially on royal wives, to be sure that any children would be of the same bloodline tied to the succession to the throne.
The Crown has modernized to the point that Charles had fooled around with plenty of women before marriage without the Church insisting that he marry anyone with whom he had sex, which would have been the case historically, to avoid the problem of bastard sons forming armies when they grew up to unseat the legitimate heir to the throne. Charles' civil divorce seemed preferable compared to King Henry VIII's solution 500 years ago, of imprisoning or executing a succession of wives who failed to produce a male heir, and arguing with the Pope for annulments from the rest, eventually breaking away from the Holy Roman Empire to found the protestant Church of England. Much bloodshed ensued before that schism was settled. These days, the Church of England has given so much ground to pop culture and the so-called "Sexual Revolution" that it is nearly impossible any more to declare a moral scandal.
For most of his life, Charles, while not obviously mentally ill, has been a few bricks shy of a load when it comes to acknowledging the conditions of his countrymen of lesser rank or privilege. He doesn't act like a total snob in public, but is apparently spoiled rotten and makes petty demands on staff to cater to him in private. He reportedly has his own golden toilet encased in a luggage-like trunk that must be taken with him on any excursions or trips, and there is a servant whose job title, Groom of the Stool, describes his function: to dispose of the contents. Charles is fussy about his food, his clothing, his gardens, his stable, his furnishings, etc. etc.
For a long while, the public has been having to educate this prince about what they will and will not easily tolerate. In the absence of any true repentance for the mess he made of his marriage to Diana and the scandal that his affair caused to ordinary people who can be health-broken or financially ruined by divorce, the Brit public did not want to accept Camilla as Queen. As other posts above mentioned, only her long years of behaving discreetly since they married in 2005 has made her look good by comparison to Sparkles Markle. Also, Charles had a long fascination with Islam and made comments about not wanting to assume the traditional title, Defender of the Faith (Anglicanism), but rather make the title an ecumenical mish-mash, "Defender of Faiths." The ethnically British public has not been at all pleased with that idea, either. In the past decade, Charles has been making more public references to Christianity. Since he's in his late 70s, it's about time.
She has taken her role seriously and behaves with kindness towards the people and discretion regarding the Royal Family.
It's not up to the Queen. It's Parliament's job. The British have a constitutional monarchy. The Queen, however, has influence and is a diplomat not only between nations, but also between Parliament and her subjects, which includes Members of Parliament. So she spoke out to ease the way, in hopes of avoiding a fight over it.
My Brit neighbor is and has been a follower of the royals’ scandals and relationships, even though she hasn’t lived there in nearly 30 years-but expat Brits all seem to do that, and it is interesting...
As a commoner rather than a royal Camilla appears intelligent-she obviously learned to be resourceful and able to make lemons into lemonade-Edwin Parker Bowles might have been a 2nd choice, but he was apparently glad to get her for a wife-and allowed her to be Charles’ mistress without making a fuss-probably there was some financial or other advantage for him to do that-then once Charles was divorced, they could stop the charade. I’m sure she knows Charles is a dumbass-but he is her dumbass, and she’s been loyal to him for a long time...
Diana is not nearly as interesting in my opinion-other than her well documented emotional/mental issues and princess-of-the-palace tantrums, there wasn’t anything about her that stood out-she always looked self-absorbed when she was on camera-sort of robotic...
When did the Church insist that a King or nobleman must marry anyone with whom he had enjoyed sex? It may have been suggested generally in public, while a blind eye was turned in reality.
You seem to have a very idealistic notion of history and of the nature of powerful men. There were plenty of royal ‘bastards’ roaming around. Many were even acknowledged and supported.
What’s your basis for thinking The Crown is not accurate?
I’ll give you one example. In the episode where the intruder broke into Buckingham Palace, he didn’t do it because he was upset with Thatcher, but the writers decided to make that episode a one-hour Thatcher-bashing episode.
Depends on what kind of shampoo Camilla uses...
I have a “risk-assessment” view of what the Crown thought and did publicly, versus what its members did privately. Of course there was copious lying and cheating. It goes with the power territory.
Oh, please. What's your basis for thinking any lefty media company can tell the truth?
I have read the Brit papers every day for decades, and have followed Elizabeth's career since it began, including the stuff she'd rather not have us focus upon. She is one of the most influential people in the world, and one of the most positive figures still today. Of course the left wants to smear her and her family any way they can—Obama has made it a covert mission—and rob the actual Crown of influence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.