She is holding the family together through Charles and Kate's crisis.

She appears to be a very level-headed person who courageously
became a royal by choice, if somewhat reluctantly. Of course, many,
especially in the States, see her as the other woman who stole Charles from Diana, and that will never change.

Thanks for the post.

their perception of who is the "other woman."
i'm glad Camilla finally has the place she deserves.
Aside from my belief that their shouldn't be a monarchy at all, and this is even for the sake of the monarchs themselves. (Again, watch The Crown for why, besides the obvious reasons)

I just finished the last season. I really loved the series. I thought overall it
was well-done. I actually for the first time really understood how the modern
monarchy works and integrates into the British system. I think even if their
monarchy seems like a archaic appendage to Americans, it is an important
aspect to traditional Britain and it would be missed. But, then that could just
be me, someone who loves Britain, history, and tradition.

The first two seasons with Claire Foy and John Lithgow as Churchill were amazing
productions. And surprisingly I enjoy the last season very much as well. Sad
when it was over as the royal saga still continues.

Because I was never ga-ga about Diana. I'm not saying I hated her, only that I didn't engage in the excessive worship of her that other people had. She was this woman famous for marrying a crown prince. Big woo.

Also, not long after the extravaganza wedding of Charles and Diana, I dated one of the youngest sons of a Middle Eastern royal family, and learned how life wasn't all decadent pleasure for them. Maybe now things are different, but, back then, they didn't have many choices, about anything. Their lives aren't theirs. They belong to tradition and obligations and can only do what will not bring shame to the crown or to the country.

They can't decide what to do with their lives, from the schools they attend to the friends they're allowed to have to what qualifies as their royal duties (observe how royals don't become doctors and engineers, even if it's what they'd wanted), and even who to marry--and why.

Sometimes a royal gets lucky, and falls in love with someone who ticks all the boxes for the kind of spouse considered suitable for an heir to the throne. That was the case with QEII. Her son wasn't lucky that way. He met and apparently did the nasty with Camilla without the blessing of the marriage sacrament--horror of horrors! That made his family so opposed to her that they arranged for Charles to go on an overseas tour with the military. But wait--that's not all! They also pressured Camilla and Andrew Parker Bowles to marry, by getting their parents to post an announcement of their engagement--even though Parker Bowles hadn't proposed at all. He got the hint and proposed, and she got the hint and accepted.

And then Charles married Diana, the one who ticked the boxes--virgin, no scandals in past, CofE, from a respectable and well-to-do family (rumours have persisted for decades now that QEII was adamant that Charles marry a Spencer), white European, and oh--yeah--a virgin. Whether or not he liked the woman was near the bottom of the list. And they made each other miserable.

And then people are surprised when it all went bung?

I don't take sides in this at all. I pity all three of them for their needless suffering. All that sturm und drang and for what? To appease malignant, patriarchal notions about who a crown prince could marry. It boggles the mind that people could still think those idiotic Medieval standards mattered in the latter half of the 20th century.

The Crown shows how QEII sister also wasn't allowed to marry for love. One after another is denied the love and career choices they would prefer. Not to mention privacy and safety issues, Diana a case in point. All the wealth not worth it to me.

You didn't fall for the Diana myth but most did. There were movies made playing Diana as a fairytale princess and Camilla as the bad woman who tried to lead Charles astray. I'm glad someone has set it straight.

I stopped watching after two episodes because I've ready many real biographies of the British Royal Family, and boy, does "The Crown
get stuff wrong. Like presenting Phillip as a kind and loving father to Charles. Nope. He was critical, unkind, and not remotely an affectionate father. Other stuff about Margaret, presenting her as more or less a person of the people. Nope. You read much about her and learn she was essentially an arrogant asshole who demanded everyone treat her with great deference, while she behaved like shit.

Honestly, read some actual biographies of these people and you'll be able to clearly define the difference between fact and fiction.

so maybe you needed to watch more than 2 episodes.

i'm sure you know more than I do. I'm not going to read biographies because there's so much more important stuff to read about than an outdated monarchy.

though for a year now I've read primarily non fiction. Been an avid reader all my life. Actually i'm better at getting my reading in than eating well or exercising as much as I should.

2 a.m. I'll just finish this chapter. .4 a.m. Book is finished.. Kitty is annoyed that Mom has not snuggled under the covers, therefor she might as well get up and feed me. Me. .since I am up, may as well start the coffee. Can always take a nap later. .but there is that newest book from one of my favourite authors. . What do you mean, it's after noon??