The Late Queen would never have been out and about wearing this...

LoveTulips said:
Queen Elizabeth II was queen material, Camilla is just Camilla.
Click to expand...
I feel that too. I've accepted her as the Queen in the sense that she's the Kings wife, and tbh I don't dislike her, ... .. but I don't think of her in any way the same as Queen Elizabeth ..as someone who rules over us... not at all...
 

izi said:
well she is a pillar of support for KC3 in his health battle. kudos!

it's great she is her own queen-self -- confidently -- without any need to prove anything to anybody.
Click to expand...
oh no you're so wrong... she has a LOT to prove.... however yes I agree, she's been a tower of strength for Charles...
 
izi said:
intrigued: don't much about her. could you share what's she trying to prove? thanks.
Click to expand...
excuse me ?...you don't think a commoner who committed adultery with the married Prince Charles, and then became Queen by default when his wife Princess Diana ultimately had to divorce him, and he and her married..... has anything to prove to anyone ?... seriously ?
 
fuzzybuddy said:
I don't think Camilla has to wear a tiara, and ermine robes 24/7, but she isn't just plain ol' nana Camilla out for a pint and some fish & chips, either. She is the living symbol of a nation. There's casual clothing, and there's casual clothing fit for a queen. One is good in the fields of Balmoral, but not good in the streets of London.
Click to expand...

The clothes she is pictured in are regular casual clothing, fit for anyone in any casual setting - especially somebody in their own time, not at a public function.
 
I agree with hollydolly. Cammilla knew exactly what would entail being married to the King of England- that there is no such thing as a "private" occasion in public. She is always the Queen, and not just Mrs. Windsor, on her way to Walmart. Her clothing was appropriate for the average U.K. woman, but that's not, who she is.
 
If you'd like to read what I think of the Royal family of GB. (If you don't you might skip my comment). The Royals are more than ever too far from the people of Great Britain.

Everybody knows that if Charles visits the girls of this dancing class who did survive this horrendous attack without harm (the psychical harm excluded!) it is not the solution of the problem. The real solution would be that such crimes doesn't happen at all. Did Charles ever say a single word against immigration of criminals? No, he did not.

He is part of the system and not a person who wants to help the ordinary people with all their problems and hardships.

I like Prince Harry because he is the most unroyal royal of all this family. And I like his wife Meghan too!

(Don't be upset Holly, I know that you are in favour of the Royals, it's no problem to me. You're a Brit of Scottish ancestry, as far as I know from your comments. I value your comments very much, even if I not always agree with them. But I know that both of us like free speech.)
 
Last edited:
George1959 said:
If you'd like to read what I think of the Royal family of GB. (If you don't you might skip my comment). The Royals are more than ever too far from the people of Great Britain.

Everybody knows that if Charles visits the girls of this dancing class who did survive this horrendous attack without harm (the psychical harm excluded!) it is not the solution of the problem. The real solution would be that such crimes doesn't happen at all. Did Charles ever say a single word against immigration of criminals? No, he did not.

He is part of the system and not a person who wants to help the ordinary people with all their problems and hardships.

I like Prince Harry because he is the most unroyal royal of all these weird family. And I like his wife Meghan too!

(Don't be upset Holly, I know that you are in favour of the Royals, it's no problem to me. You're a Brit of Scottish ancestry, as far as I know from your comments. I value your comments very much, even if I not always agree with them. But I know that both of us like free speech.)
Click to expand...
I'm no fan of KC3 nor of any of them, but to be fair I think I read somewhere that the monarch is not allowed to interfere or speak of matters of law and/or politics. I may be wrong, but I seem to recall this.
 
RadishRose said:
I'm no fan of KC3 nor of any of them, but to be fair I think I read somewhere that the monarch is not allowed to interfere or speak of matters of law and/or politics. I may be wrong, but I seem to recall this.
Click to expand...
I don't know this, but if it is true, it sould be altered. A monarch should be free to speak of all topics!
 
George1959 said:
If you'd like to read what I think of the Royal family of GB. (If you don't you might skip my comment). The Royals are more than ever too far from the people of Great Britain.

Everybody knows that if Charles visits the girls of this dancing class who did survive this horrendous attack without harm (the psychical harm excluded!) it is not the solution of the problem. The real solution would be that such crimes doesn't happen at all. Did Charles ever say a single word against immigration of criminals? No, he did not.

He is part of the system and not a person who wants to help the ordinary people with all their problems and hardships.

I like Prince Harry because he is the most unroyal royal of all these weird family. And I like his wife Meghan too!

(Don't be upset Holly, I know that you are in favour of the Royals, it's no problem to me. You're a Brit of Scottish ancestry, as far as I know from your comments. I value your comments very much, even if I not always agree with them. But I know that both of us like free speech.)
Click to expand...
i'm not upset, you like who you like... you don't have to justify it, but pity that you dislike the royals but like the lying greedy gruesome twosome...
 
I was always on Camila's "side" just because the press was so obviously against her. Diana was their bread and butter for years, good flattering pictures of her on the cover of their magazines and newspapers guaranteed good sales, so they made sure they always photographed her at her best and never printed anything bad about her no matter what awful things she was up to. (She called one married man so much the police had to step in to stop Diana from stalking him.)

It's been established for some time now that Diana was having affairs before Camilla and Charles started theirs. The traffic of men, polo stars, business men, doctors, etc., in and out of her wing of the palace was so busy they called her door the "revolving door."

Camilla, on the other hand, had fallen in love with Charles at a time when the royals were against them marrying so she married Parker-Bowles. After that marriage failed and Charles started calling her because he and Diana were discovering they had nothing in common, only then did she reunite with her one true love. Still the press seems to hate her, taking unflattering pictures of her, and trying to catch her doing something "wrong." I admire her loyalty to the King and her tough spirit.
 
-Oy- said:
Queen Victoria dressed totally differently than Queen Elizabeth II. What's the issue?
Click to expand...
there's no issue..Oy... there's a difference in the way Queen Elizabeth would have been seen out in public... to Camilla...

The only difference in your example of Victoria... is that Camilla is Queen only one year after QE2... Que2 didn't become Queen until over 50 years after Victoria,... that's 5 generations of differing fashion and style.. not 12 months !
 
Della said:
I was always on Camila's "side" just because the press was so obviously against her. Diana was their bread and butter for years, good flattering pictures of her on the cover of their magazines and newspapers guaranteed good sales, so they made sure they always photographed her at her best and never printed anything bad about her no matter what awful things she was up to. (She called one married man so much the police had to step in to stop Diana from stalking him.)

It's been established for some time now that Diana was having affairs before Camilla and Charles started theirs. The traffic of men, polo stars, business men, doctors, etc., in and out of her wing of the palace was so busy they called her door the "revolving door."

Camilla, on the other hand, had fallen in love with Charles at a time when the royals were against them marrying so she married Parker-Bowles. After that marriage failed and Charles started calling her because he and Diana were discovering they had nothing in common, only then did she reunite with her one true love. Still the press seems to hate her, taking unflattering pictures of her, and trying to catch her doing something "wrong." I admire her loyalty to the King and her tough spirit.
Click to expand...
Sorry Della ..the press did report this, it was all over the media, because the married Man Oliver Hoar' wife reported it to the police

Diana denied it, it was proven beyond any doubt that the calls could only come from her... so the press did jump on her from a high height at times..
 
hollydolly said:
Sorry Della ..the press did report this, it was all over the media, because the married Man Oliver Hoar' wife reported it to the police

Diana denied it, it was proven beyond any doubt that the calls could only come from her... so the press did jump on her from a high height at times..
Click to expand...
Ah, I stand corrected, good to know It wasn't all just pretty pictures of her in the newspapers.
 
hollydolly said:
there's no issue..Oy... there's a difference in the way Queen Elizabeth would have been seen out in public... to Camilla...

The only difference in your example of Victoria... is that Camilla is Queen only one year after QE2... Que2 didn't become Queen until over 50 years after Victoria,... that's 5 generations of differing fashion and style.. not 12 months !
Click to expand...

There seems an issue to some posters who thought how Camilla dressed was inappropriate. Still not sure why but they did.

It isn't really 12 months in generation, it is 25 ish years. Ie Camilla is about 25 years younger. Most people don't dress same as their parents generation.
 
LoveTulips said:
Queen Elizabeth II was queen material, Camilla is just Camilla.
Click to expand...
Elizabeth would not have become the Queen if it were not for her uncle abdicating his throne.
From that moment on she was groomed every day to be the Monarch on the death of her father.
Camilla is not queen is the same sense as Elizabeth II. She is simply the consort of the King and awarded the honorary title of Queen.

IMO she has been a great comfort to Charles III and fulfils her royal duties very well. They are not programmed robots and the media really should back off when they are going about their private business.

Good luck to them both.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top