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.

[khaolakguy]

9 hours ago, PeterRS said:

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.

It is very surprising that you are spreading such conspiracy theories based purely on such obvious AI videos. Obvious just from the images that they advertise themselves with, which are quintessential clickbait. There is far too much misinformation circulating in the world without apparently intelligent people adding to it on this forum.

As to Andrew the knowledge that he was, or had become, a wrong'un, has circulated for years, although more seems to be coming out all the time. Interesting article yesterday in The Guardian(a credible print media) on how Andrew has been funding his lifestyle. 

https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-interactive/2025/oct/25/how-does-he-pay-for-it-all-the-mystery-of-prince-andrews-money

 

[unicorn]

13 hours ago, a-447 said:

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

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

There are a lot of amusing AI videos with parrots and cops these days. Probably the same people. Even AI can be fooled by other AI. One has to be careful not only of what one reads but also what one sees these days.

 

 

In this one, the parrot's head goes right through the metal in the cage:

 

 

 

[unicorn]

 

 

[unicorn]

14 hours ago, PeterRS said:

...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...

No, it does not. What it does say is that one must seriously question any statements of fact made without references. When I make statements of fact, I usually provide links to my references--or at least a statement to the effect of "I heard on the CBS news today"... Only when one leaves references can another person check those references for credibility. Of course, just having a reference doesn't mean the statement is true. There is one regular poster on this forum who habitually posts references, claiming the reference states one thing, when in fact the reference states the opposite. But at least in that case the person with the fake references can be identified as a liar. We all know who that poster is, and we all know to view any statements he makes with extreme caution. 

It's foolish to believe something simply on the basis of "somebody told me" or "I read it somewhere." This doesn't mean that an undocumented statement can't possibly be true. What it does mean is "undocumented" = "unreliable". Believing in something merely because someone said so (and one wants to believe in it) is foolish. A lot of people do just that, however. Look at how Trump got elected. He's a professional con-man who makes completely baseless allegations and claims. His supporters will believe whatever he says, regardless of the facts. 

[caeron]

The proliferation of fake videos and news has made me go double check every questionable story I see or read. 

Just yesterday I saw a video on tiktok saying that Boots had been renewed as a pushback on the pentagon's calling it "woke garbage". It hasn't been. There was no official response, though I imagine they're quietly delighted with the free publicity. And like this piece, there was enough truth in it, that the lies that followed seemed more believable.

I fear we are drifting back in time to Orwell's 1984. Lies are proliferating, and many can't tell the difference, or can't be bothered to question. 

I think this is going to lead to some very dark places for the civilized world if people don't wake up and question what they see and hear.

I guess it's theoretically possible, but it seems insane to me to imagine Camilla would steal a family jewel and then put it up at auction.

I think it far more likely that somebody doesn't like the royal family and creating this kind of story to hurt them. I'm no fan of the royals, but I am even less of a fan of propaganda and lies.

[Keithambrose]

2 hours ago, caeron said:

The proliferation of fake videos and news has made me go double check every questionable story I see or read. 

Just yesterday I saw a video on tiktok saying that Boots had been renewed as a pushback on the pentagon's calling it "woke garbage". It hasn't been. There was no official response, though I imagine they're quietly delighted with the free publicity. And like this piece, there was enough truth in it, that the lies that followed seemed more believable.

I fear we are drifting back in time to Orwell's 1984. Lies are proliferating, and many can't tell the difference, or can't be bothered to question. 

I think this is going to lead to some very dark places for the civilized world if people don't wake up and question what they see and hear.

I guess it's theoretically possible, but it seems insane to me to imagine Camilla would steal a family jewel and then put it up at auction.

I think it far more likely that somebody doesn't like the royal family and creating this kind of story to hurt them. I'm no fan of the royals, but I am even less of a fan of propaganda and lies.

I agree. The British press, or at least the tabloids, and a couple of publications  that used to be newspapers,  the Daily Mail and the Express, publish anything they can find on the Royals, and, nothing on this. If true it would have been the biggest news story for decades,  and the comments by @PeterRS. trying to defend his article are hopeless. A modest, sorry I was wrong, would have been appropriate. Perhaps  too much for him.

[PeterRS]

2 hours ago, Keithambrose said:

A modest, sorry I was wrong, would have been appropriate. Perhaps  too much for him.

Very well. Part of the original post was wrong, especially the heading,. I apologise unreservedly for those comments.

9 hours ago, unicorn said:

Only when one leaves references can another person check those references for credibility. Of course, just having a reference doesn't mean the statement is true . . . It's foolish to believe something simply on the basis of "somebody told me" or "I read it somewhere." This doesn't mean that an undocumented statement can't possibly be true. What it does mean is "undocumented" = "unreliable". Believing in something merely because someone said so (and one wants to believe in it) is foolish.

With this I agree. As regular readers will be aware, I virtually always cite sources especially in my posts. And I am equally aware that sources may themselves not be correct. I have written several posts about the various scam centres in Myanmar, even posting a map of their location. A variety of references in several reliable websites claim that the number of people trafficked to man these centres varies from "more than 100,000" (BBC and The Guardian) to "up to 300,000" (AP and PBS). That's a huge difference but barring official figures, the use of "more than" and "up to" gives each source a reasonable 'out'.

But that is really beside the point. My headline was wrong and allegation regarding theft of the Diana sappire wrong. Part of the post was certainly accurate, though. As @khaolakguy has stated - and I also stated - the drip, drip of scandal surrounding Prince Andrew, his ex-wife nd Epstein is not new. The issue regarding his being possibly evicted from his home is very recent, as both of us have stated.

Seeing who has criticised the posting of 'fake' news has been interesting as three have critcised me in the past, in two cases with wrong statements which were not corrected and one for breaking Board rules. None apologised. But that was then and this is now. Chat rooms remain alive largely because of their diversity which I embrace.

I apologise again.

[PeterRS]

Partly to steer this conversation away from fake news and back into the realm of reality, one more video partly relating to Prince Andrew. The two interviewees could not have more serious and respected backgrounds. Emilly Maitlis was one of the BBC's most formidable journalists who was given the scoop of a one-hour interview with Prince Andrew in 2019. Andrew had finally agreed to the interview which he believed would finally clear his name and confirm his oft-quoted comments about never having met the late Virginia Giuffre. Quietly, patiently and with great tact Maitlis stripped away Andrew's defences to the point where eventually no-one believed most of what he told her. The interview is available on youtube. I will not post it here, but you can watch it by typing in "Prince Andrew and Epstein Scandal: Newsnight".

The other lady is Virginia Giuffre's co-writer/ghostwriter on her recently published memoir, Amy Wallace, who not only knew Giuffre very well, she stayed with her and her family on two visits lasting a month with her family in Melbourne. Maitlis starts by recounting a conversation she had with Wallace about Prince Andrew. Inevitably Epstein and Maxwell are heaviy involved but it ends by suggesting how the King now wants Andrew out of the way.