Britain's Royal Scandals: Queen Camilla Forced Out

[PeterRS]

There is an old proverb that starts "For the want of a nail the shoe was lost . . ." It is basically a reminder that seemingly unimportant acts can end up having grave consequences. If any family has learned a series of such lessons it is the British Royal Family. Virtually unreported internationally and but the stuff of gossip in Britain and through a series of youtube videos, in the last few weeks the royals have undergone an upheaval of seismic proportions. It is a highly complicated story and my sources may not have it all accurate. But enough seems to form the basic truth.

The most amazing decision by King Charles is his announcement that Queen Camilla has from henceforth given up her title and all her royal duties. Members of her family are no longer permitted to enter royal residences. Camilla of course is the "other woman", the woman who King Charles loved before he even met and married Diana and with whom he carried on an affair right through that marriage. After Diana's death, over many stage-managed years, the couple remained in love until even Diana's sons approved of their father's remarriage. And it is surely a supreme irony that the late and adored Princess has played a key role in Camilla's downfall.

Before looking further at this event that has shocked Britain, King Charles has had to deal with the fallout of the Epstein affair and the certainty that both his brother Prince Andrew the Duke of York and Andrew's wife, the former Sarah Ferguson, were heavily involved with Epstein. In what has been a very long drip, drip of excesively negative PR, both have been found guilty in the eyes of the public and officials of lying about their association with the pedophile. It seems certain that Andrew did have sex several times with the late Virginia Giuffre and the Duchess, who continuously overspent and was always in need of cash, continued to be in touch seeking yet more "loans" from Epstein, even after stating in public that she had severed all connection with him. Although divorced decades ago, for whatever reason they still live together in a 70-room home called The Royal Lodge in Windsor Great Park. The lease was negotiated many years ago but results in the Duke paying no annual rent. The British public is now doing its best to get them out which would take an Act of Parliament. A few weeks ago, in an attempt to counter the massively increasing public disdain, the Duke announced he was giving up his title and all his royal duties. His wife would do the same. But the furore has only increased.  

This week the King finally acted regarding his younger son, the Duke of Sussex married to the actress Megan Markle who live in California. They have been a thorn in the side of the royal family for some years. From now on, they will not be entitled to use the titles Duke and Duchess and their children will not be permitted to use the title of Royal Highnesses.

But back to Princess Diana and how her influence resulted in the forced abdication of Britain's Queen. When Diana married the present King Charles, Queen Elizabeth gave her a very large oval sapphire. In due course, Diana had this fashioned into a choker surrounded by diamonds and with seven strands of pearls. It became one of her most recognised pieces of jewellery and she wore it when she danced with John Travolta. 

Photograph: Getty Images

The sapphire matched the wedding ring given her by Charles. Catherine, the wife of Charles' heir Prince William, was given the ring and wears it I believe every day. The sapphire and diamonds in the choker were later made into a brooch which Diana also wore quite regularly. It belongs to the royal collection held in a special vault in Buckingham Palace. On Diana's death, the Queen had agreed that the brooch be given to Catherine, to the annoyance of Camilla who wanted it. But recently this brooch had mysteriously appeared at an auction house in Geneva. Was it real? Or was it just a copy? (The vdo states the brooch haad been missng for years. This is not true).

But there was fortunately a considerable amount of paperwork associated with the brooch and royal investigators got to work. Camilla used her influence to gently and subtly place the blame on Catherine. Catherine even dicovered she was being followed. They soon discovered a secret go-between who identified the seller. This had been a resident of Ray Mill House in the English countryside. This happens to be Camilla's private residence where she often meets up with her former family. The King and his advisors were initially skeptical but it was Prince Wiliam, fiercely protective of his mother's memory, who told his father that action had to be taken. This could not be hushed up behind closed doors. As William's wife said to King Charles, "The 'crown' must always be protected, no matter what it costs personally." The King's sister, Princess Anne, was also very firm with her brother that action had to be taken quickly.

It seems likely that Charles initially just did not believe what he was being told - or did not want to believe. When the theft was discovered, a double entry was also discovered in the logs for entry to the Royal Vault some weeks before the sapphire appeared in Switzerland. It seemed clearly to be an inside job. And one who has now been blamed in some of the media is a thief in the employ of one of Camilla's sons by her previous marriage. When photgraphs appeared of his young daughter wearing a brooch suspicioually like that of Diana, suspicion fell on Camilla. Back in July as all this was becoming known privately within the royal family, William called a family meeting when his father was on holiday. He said the jewel had to be returned. Camilla went on the attack and said she was entitled to borrow temporarily jewellry for her family. Allegedly she stormed out of the meeting with her granddaughter.

Unknown to the thief, the piece of jewellry discovered in Switzerland had a clue - a short inscription on the back ending with the letter 'D'.

Although there will likely be more changes in Britain's Royal Family, one who has been unscathed is the King's youngest brother, Priince Edward, the Duke of Edinburgh. His wife, Sophie, was a greeat friend of the late Queen and it seems this couple will now be much more in the royal spotlight. Their (very handsome) 17 year-old son has been elevated to a Prince and he, too, will likely be part of the the new royal line up. With Charles still being treated for prostate cancer, these changes may all have come at a very appropriate time.

The new Prince James walking with his father Prince Edward.

[forrestreid]

Have you been at the sherry Peter?

No mention of this so far on BBC, I notice....

[Keithambrose]

25 minutes ago, forrestreid said:

Have you been at the sherry Peter?

No mention of this so far on BBC, I notice....

Nor yet on any other news media. Charles and Camilla are in Rome, being ecumenical.

[Suckrates]

If Britain is able to get "rid of a QUEEN",   WE should be able to shed our Orange King. ?   

[khaolakguy]

What drivel! To post such nonsense without a single credible source is just silly. Just tittle tattle.

[Keithambrose]

2 hours ago, Keithambrose said:

Nor yet on any other news media. Charles and Camilla are in Rome, being ecumenical.

I doubt that Charles has gone to Rome to ask the Pope for an annulment! Didn't work for Henry VIII!

[khaolakguy]

8 minutes ago, Keithambrose said:

I doubt that Charles has gone to Rome to ask the Pope for an annulment! Didn't work for Henry VIII!

And you would hardly take the missus with you!

[Suckrates]

1 hour ago, khaolakguy said:

What drivel! To post such nonsense without a single credible source is just silly. Just tittle tattle.

The White House DOES IT every single day, and no one bats an eye !  

[unicorn]

15 minutes ago, Suckrates said:

The White House DOES IT every single day, and no one bats an eye !  

[PeterRS]

I stated at the outset that my sources might not all be accurate. There is one definite error - that the home of Prince Andrew has 70 rooms. The number should have been 30. That was definitely my mistake.

10 hours ago, khaolakguy said:

What drivel! To post such nonsense without a single credible source is just silly. Just tittle tat

That statement assumes that all  that the post included is drivel and that is rubbish. Much of what was written is true, especially the the long detail on Prince Andrew and his wife with their multiple Epstein connections which has also been written elsewhere on this Board. Much of this has appeared in the daily media. 

https://people.com/epstein-claimed-emails-sarah-ferguson-celebrated-prison-release-daughters-report-11833147

I accept that the action against Queen Camilla is certainly more doubtful despite its appearing in a mass of videos (not merely the usual few click-bait versions) and repeated in at least one print media. If that is discovered to be untrue, naturally I apologise, especially for the heading. That major changes are afoot in the Royal Family is certain, although the secrecy surrounding all Palace intrigue inevitably leads to speculation. The increasing influence of Prince William even on his sick father is also fact. 

[a-447]

The florid language in the video shows that it is AI.

Perhaps you should wait until it appears on the BBC before you post.