MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Camilla was shit-talking Meghan and basi...

Camilla was shit-talking Meghan and basically got caught.


The day after she had lunch with the guy, he writes a column hating on Meghan so over the top he got called out by the British press authorities. Yes, they actually have that over there. Go Figure. And here we were, just thinking she was a nice old lady trying to get everybody sorted and calm things down. Not so simple.

Major egg on her face (from today's Washington Post) :

In the 2022 column, Clarkson wrote: “I hate her,” of Meghan, 41. “I hate her on a cellular level.”

“At night, I’m unable to sleep as I lie there, grinding my teeth and dreaming of the day when she is made to parade naked through the streets of every town in Britain while the crowds chant, “Shame!” and throw lumps of excrement at her,” he continued.

...

“This was a serious breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice,” IPSO Chairman Edward Faulks in a statement. “We found that the imagery employed by the columnist in this article was humiliating and degrading toward the Duchess.”

He reiterated that the regulators’ purpose is to protect the public and freedom of expression by upholding high editorial standards.

The column received “more than 25,100 complaints from the public,” according to IPSO — and was reported in another publication to be the article most complained about to the press body since it was established in 2014. The formal complaint was brought by two women’s rights nonprofit groups — the Fawcett Society and the WILDE Foundation.

...

In the public backlash at the time, senior politicians as well as Clarkson’s own daughter lambasted the op-ed. It also dragged the wife of King Charles III, Camilla, into the furor after it emerged that she had hosted Clarkson at a palace luncheon a few days before the column ran.

reply

Reminds me of what Martin Bashir said about Sarah Palin. Idiots.

reply

Oh please, everyone shit-talks Meghan!

reply

Exactly, and IMO, most of it is well deserved.

reply

And I'm sure the better someone knows her, them more they shit-talk.

The only surprise in this article is that Queen Camilla is pals with that jerk Clarkson.

reply

"it emerged that she had hosted Clarkson at a palace luncheon a few days before the column ran." - with many other people present. You're making out that she put him up to it or something.

Jeremy Clarkson is a vile piece of work, a bully. You just have to watch top gear to see that.

reply

It looks bad. If he's such a vile person, what is she doing socializing with him - I'm not making up the bad perception myself.

From my perspective, I hadn't expected to see her involved in the psycho drama. It might indeed be that she is collateral damage - but royals are judged by the company they keep. Just ask Prince Andrew.

reply

"Queen Camilla was photographed attending a private lunch party at Mayfair's Murano restaurant in London on Wednesday December 14, where a number of A-list celebrities and broadcasters were also in attendance.

The Daily Mail reports that the lunch was not hosted by Camilla, but that she was the guest of long-time friend Ewan Venters, the former CEO of the Fortnum and Mason department store, close to her home at Clarence House and also Buckingham Palace." (source: https://www.newsweek.com/queen-camilla-lunch-meghan-markle-critic-jeremy-clarkson-explained-1768050)

She shouldn't have attended if people like him were also invited, but I feel it's a stretch to say that Camilla was behind this. And in the world of publishing, normally opinion pieces like that would have been submitted a few days before publishing, perhaps before the lunch itself.

reply

The implication is that the piece was written AFTER the lunch, was definitely published a few days later. Hard to get the stink of association off w/ that timeline. She either was involved, or the writer did her a huge disservice.

Remember that one of Harry's major complaints is that the royals use the tabloid press to disparage him and his wife - so there is context - this isn't all just out of thin air.

We won't know the truth - what can be said for sure is that neither she or the rest of the royals raised a protest. Which is on them. And IF she hadn't been involved it would have been easy enough to do, while if she'd been casting aspersions much harder. People are simply going to draw some conclusions. Which is very unfortunate for her, as she has been doing a nice job heretofore of raising her and Charles' image.

In which case, I'm going with the presumption that she had a role in it, which again was a surprise to me. You can interpret it as you like.

Its all a soap opera anyway. One of my silly guilty pleasures.

reply

I'm embarrassed to admit this, but I get occasional glimpses into what's left of Meg's fandom, and it seems that these days it's finally sunk in that she isn't the success they want to believe she is. So their new tactic is to blame Camilla for all of her woes, they're putting out rumors that she's some sort of Gray Eminence who's secretly plotting to destroy Harry and Meg. So, they're blaming her for Clarkson's assholery.

Which does show a certain lack of familiarity with Clarskson, who has been a professional asshole for decades. But they're Americans, very few Americans know about him.

reply

I'm not a fan. If anything, I am prone to be sympathetic to Camilla. But this just looks bad.

reply

Looks bad? Are you familiar with Clarkson?

Because if you aren't, then FYI he isn't someone who needs to be told to shit-talk.

reply

Yeah, it looks bad. I don't give a shit if you don't connect the dots the way others do. Its not a about the hack writer, its about the queen being in intimate proximity to him a few days before he unloads on her supposed 'daughter-in-law'.

reply

Seriously, what do you know about Clarkson?

Because if you know nothing, then FYI he's been famous for bitchy humor for a very long time and loves a bit of shit-stirring! And is absolutely the kind of guy who'd hope he could get Cam to spill some dirt on Meghan, rather than the kind of guy who could be manipulated into doing Cam's dirty work.

reply

I'm not at all familiar with him. I wasn't assuming anything other than he must have come out of that meeting with some sort of sense of freedom to trash Meghan which, whatever the facts or motives of either, would not fail to associate Camilla with those aspersions. Which Camilla did not at all subsequently reprove.

I'm not even sure what we're arguing about - its all a matter of association & implication. She could have kept her hands clean by protesting the piece (25K+ did), which she did not do. And so the implication remains that something in her demeanor or remarks gave Clarkson encouragement - certainly did not discourage him.

You could call it quite simply guilt by association, compounded by a failure to disassociate ex post facto.

That's all I have to say about it. I'm not trying to convince you to think otherwise, merely to explain the perception, none of which was of my own creation.

reply

Your mind's made up! Don't let anyone who knows more about the people involved confuse you with new information, however accurate!

Because seriously, Clarkson IS a shit-stirrer. Always has been.

reply

My mind is made up that that is a reasonable perception, yes. If Camilla didn't want it to be so, she should have spoke up against it, as did others. Can't make it clearer - you seem to be obsessed with this.

You're on your own now. Have the last word, tell me how wrong I am for thinking this made Camilla look bad, like I made it all up, or have pretended to any certainty. You actually haven't been listening, you've just been arguing.

reply

I think it’s best to just stop paying attention to all of these dipshits.

reply

Exactly!

reply

We’re both waking up for work tomorrow and certainly not in a castle…Fuck them!

reply

the diana-charles drama of the 80s and 90s made me sick of the royal family.

reply

Everyone has their embarrassing obsessions. I'm a little surprised at this one though.

reply