The Queen and domestic violence

Thank you Crossstichfan. That's a very kind post. My childhood was pretty horrendous as you can imagine. My mother died aged 58 in 1972. My youngest sister was only 14 at the time.

Kate1949

graninthemist I regularly saw my mother being bashed up which I won't go into. She was from Ireland and had nowhere to go and no one to turn to. She was too ashamed to tell her family.

That is horrendous Kate1949, both for your poor mother and for you having to witness what happened to her. For some reason, what you said particularly pulled at my heart strings and I am so sorry. I have seen similar accounts but yours jumped off the page. I hope you are ok? I’m assuming your mother is no longer around, but if I am wrong, I hope she is ok too x

I thought this thread was about domestic violence but re-reading I see the OP was talking about the Queen Camilla’s involvement. Good for her I say. Anyone bringing publicity to this subject should be applauded. Whether you’re for or against Royalty, the plus is that they’re able to bring focus and increase awareness on certain issues, and this one is very important.

gentleshores

Sorry, can't stand Camilla - it's a PR job. I have a long memory. She could have left Charles alone when things started going well with Diana - but she didn't (that bit was in The Crown).

A long memory not just for what she did but who she was - raucous - swearing, dirty jokes. Big PR job!

So yes throughout history Kings have had mistresses but they didn't marry them - and this is the 21st century not medieval times. Charles should have made way for his son.

A title doesn't make a Queen. So as far as I'm concerned she's a usurper! Sorry.

Having said all that - Charles seems very happy - maybe because he's finally King primarily. After spending most of his life in waiting. And no doubt he wants Camilla by his side - but honestly it's gross.

So yes throughout history Kings have had mistresses but they didn't marry them - and this is the 21st century not medieval times. Charles should have made way for his son.

As this is the 21st century perhaps it's time to do away with the hole notion of royal mistresses, and allow kings to marry whomever they like - including a former mistress.

In fact it is positively medieval and sexist to uphold the tradition of royal mistresses as playthings for bored kings.

gentleshores
A title doesn't make a Queen. So as far as I'm concerned she's a usurper! Sorry.

Your choice.

Same as mine is to like her and consider her queen as the wife of the king, the same way as I’m Mrs MG because I’m married to Mr MG.
The good news is that your approval isn’t any more necessary than mine.

Good grief you believe Thr Crown ?

Sorry, can't stand Camilla - it's a PR job. I have a long memory. She could have left Charles alone when things started going well with Diana - but she didn't (that bit was in The Crown).

A long memory not just for what she did but who she was - raucous - swearing, dirty jokes. Big PR job!

So yes throughout history Kings have had mistresses but they didn't marry them - and this is the 21st century not medieval times. Charles should have made way for his son.

A title doesn't make a Queen. So as far as I'm concerned she's a usurper! Sorry.

Having said all that - Charles seems very happy - maybe because he's finally King primarily. After spending most of his life in waiting. And no doubt he wants Camilla by his side - but honestly it's gross.

Hi to all,

I was very moved by watching this Programme about how Many People this is affecting to say the Least.
It really touched my heart watching this it affected me for a few days after watching it as it's so sensitive I've always been sensitive about some things.
Camila was Really amazing in what she said I didn't think she would know about this sort of thing..........
Amazing it was on tv I made sure I watched the programme.

sparklebright628

Change is the only inevitable thing in life, so we do need to embrace it or risk being left in the past ourselves.

Yes.

00opsidia

Yes we have had plenty of Queens in history and I agree it's silly.

I think some people get stuck in the past because they struggle with change. Change is the only inevitable thing in life, so we do need to embrace it or risk being left in the past ourselves.

It's difficult for many people because they have known no other Queen apart from Queen Elizabeth II although, of course, her mother was so well-known but always known as the Queen Mother.

It's probably habit rather than anything else for most people.

Pumpkinpie

The Queen is dead. No amount of pretending will change that.
Camilla married Prince Charles but she will never be a queen in the eyes of the British public no matter how much her PR team push it

Not liking the woman is not a reason to say that "she will never be a queen in the eyes of the British public " and assuming that your dislike is shared by the whole population doesn't make it true.

She is the legal and very supportive wife of the King. The Queen is dead. Long live the Queen.

Yes we have had plenty of Queens in history and I agree it's silly.

I think some people get stuck in the past because they struggle with change. Change is the only inevitable thing in life, so we do need to embrace it or risk being left in the past ourselves.

RosiesMaw2

Pumpkinpie

The Queen is dead. No amount of pretending will change that.
Camilla married Prince Charles but she will never be a queen in the eyes of the British public no matter how much her PR team push it

Oh for goodness sake!
HM QEII is dead, yes
King Charles is our monarch and his wife is QUEEN - get used to it.
Whatever makes you (think you are) spokesperson for the entire British public?

Yes, it's an absurd statement!

Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother died too, as did Queen Mary, Queen Alexandra, Queen Victoria, Queen Anne, Queen Elizabeth I and many others over the centuries.

All with the title Queen, either in their own right as Monarch or as the wife of a reigning Monarch.

Caleo

Diana should be laid to rest along with all her triumphs and disappointments.
The King and Camilla are sufficient unto the day and her support for women's refuges is a thoroughly good thing. Let's hope all local authorities will now provide sufficient refuges, despite this putting up the council tax.
What are increased numbers of refuges going to cost and are Grans in favour of the extra council tax?

I never intended this thread to be a Camilla/Charles bashing or Diana idolising one.
Why can’t you move on?

What has this to do with Camilla’s work with domestic violence charities?
Or our views on Council Tax?
Does that count as What iffery?
Or indeed this?
How do you know that Charles and Diana were 'pressured' or 'manipulated ?

How do you know that Charles and Diana were 'pressured' or 'manipulated'?

Diana should be laid to rest along with all her triumphs and disappointments.
The King and Camilla are sufficient unto the day and her support for women's refuges is a thoroughly good thing. Let's hope all local authorities will now provide sufficient refuges, despite this putting up the council tax.
What are increased numbers of refuges going to cost and are Grans in favour of the extra council tax?

biglouis

I used to have very ambivalent feelings about Camilla because I liked Diana. However never let us forget that Diana was a naive young girl of 19 who was manipulated into marriage by her relatives (Lady Fermoy) and the queen mother. Charles was also pressured to a great extent by relatives (father, uncle etc) to marry. They were never well suited.

Charles and Camilla should have been allowed to marry when they first met. However Camilla was in a relationship with Parker-Bowles and Charles was unable to resist family pressure.

It all reads like something out of a bad Mills and Boon novel.

However never let us forget that Diana was a naive young girl of 19 who was manipulated into marriage by her relatives (Lady Fermoy) and the queen mother. Charles was also pressured to a great extent by relatives (father, uncle etc) to marry. They were never well suited.

I think that about sums it up.

Royalty and the aristocracy do things differently to the rest of us. There are titles, fortunes and property to protect, so one has to marry the right gel.

Which, inevitably, isn't always a happy union.

Strange that Diana’s sisters didn’t tell her about the alleged affair of Charles and Camilla

I used to have very ambivalent feelings about Camilla because I liked Diana. However never let us forget that Diana was a naive young girl of 19 who was manipulated into marriage by her relatives (Lady Fermoy) and the queen mother. Charles was also pressured to a great extent by relatives (father, uncle etc) to marry. They were never well suited.

Charles and Camilla should have been allowed to marry when they first met. However Camilla was in a relationship with Parker-Bowles and Charles was unable to resist family pressure.

It all reads like something out of a bad Mills and Boon novel.

lemsip what is the name of the domestic abuse charity you
say was chosen for Camilla ?

lemsip

the role was chosen for 'the queen' to give her name too for the very reason that it is gathering support for her.
she may well be doing a good job of it though!

I think they all have good causes suggested/offered to them so they are bound to want to support the ones that are a good fit. Making a success of it is down to them as the Queen has shown.

Harry and Meghan as Commonwealth ambassadors springs to mind 🤔

I totally agree, Rosie's Maw. Well said.

the role was chosen for 'the queen' to give her name too for the very reason that it is gathering support for her.
she may well be doing a good job of it though!

Margaret chose not to marry Townsend, she chose her position
and money

Camilla has always been Charles’s soul mate but he wasn’t allowed to marry her, the same thing happened with Princess Margaret she was not allowed to marry Peter Townsend. Both ended up with bad marriages and no real love.