New Adventures of Queen Victoria by Pab Sungenis for August 12, 2012

  1. Img 0910
    BE THIS GUY  over 12 years ago

    Camila isn’t a monarch, yet.

     •  Reply
  2. Emerald
    margueritem  over 12 years ago

    SNERK!

     •  Reply
  3. Clouseau
    el8  over 12 years ago

    and she still looks like a horse!

     •  Reply
  4. Dementors suck
    slug_queen  over 12 years ago

    I don’t know what the problems is with Camilla. She looks like many women her age, and like many British women, period. She dresses neatly, is polite, probably uses the right fork. She’s married to her best friend, and she gets along with his children. Can’t we just back off on her? QE2 shows no signs of slowing down…

     •  Reply
  5. Deficon
    Coyoty Premium Member over 12 years ago

    Ethelred sounds like the inspiration for Blackadder.

     •  Reply
  6. Avat
    Richard Howland-Bolton Premium Member over 12 years ago

    Forget Mrs Big-Ears. The real question here is why Vicky missed out on Æþelræd Unræd’s real booboo, the St. Brice’s Day massacre of 1002. Also it’s a bit of a stretch for her to call him an ancestor.

     •  Reply
  7. Pirate63
    Linguist  over 12 years ago

    Aethelred , unlike Camilla Parker-Bowles, was actually liked by his people and unlike the Prince Charles’ wife, governed England, whereas Parker-Bowles will never be Queen. Remember the Duke and Duchess of Windsor and the abdication.I believe succession will pass to William and Kate.

     •  Reply
  8. Missing large
    vwdualnomand  over 12 years ago

    isn’t the current british monarchs descended from the germans?

     •  Reply
  9. Missing large
    Domhan  over 12 years ago

    I absolutely love the Queen Vicky strips that give us a history lesson…with a punch line. Keep ‘em comin’!

     •  Reply
  10. Photo on 2010 11 08 at 15.31
    peachyanddanny  over 12 years ago

    Bill Murray cleaned up the font.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPxiXGr9nFM

     •  Reply
  11. Georg von rosen   oden som vandringsman  1886  odin  the wanderer
    runar  over 12 years ago

    Although he’s called “the Unready”, his actual monicker, “Unræd”, actually means “ill-advised”. Real historians who prefer accuracy over folk etymology attribute the poor quality of Æþelræd’s reign to the poor quality of advice he got from his Witenagemot.It’s ironic, to be certain, since the name “Æþelræd” means “noble counsel”, the opposite of his epithet.

     •  Reply
  12. Missing large
    thesnowleopard Premium Member over 12 years ago

    Nope. She met Charles first and was dating him. Then the family apparently posted him overseas to break them up. She didn’t wait and got married to another guy. He then married Diana, and he and Camilla got back together while they were both still married to other people. There wasn’t anything really keeping them apart aside from his family thinking she wasn’t “suitable.”

    Not saying Diana was a saint, but look at the examples of appropriate behavior she was being presented with. If Charles had been a mensch to his family and Camilla hadn’t married the next boy who presented himself, the marriage with Diana never would have happened in the first place.

     •  Reply
  13. Missing large
    thesnowleopard Premium Member over 12 years ago

    @Whitecamry

    See, this is why I think royals-watching gets a bit obsessive and a little creepy. We don’t really know these people. We just know the gossip about them. Yet, we take sides and make all sorts of judgements about them based on what amounts to tittle-tattle.

    Charles and Camilla were in their early 20s when they met and made the mistakes that led to their separation and his marrying a more “proper” (read: teenage) bride. When he married Diana, she was 21 and she wasn’t even the youngest girl he considered. He first met her when she was 17; he’d previously considered a girl who was 15. And he was 33 at his wedding.

    Now, 13 years isn’t that much time, depending on what stage of life you’re at, but there is no question Diana was chosen for her bloodline and her unworldliness, and that Charles was a lot more aware of what he was doing than she was. To then turn around and accuse her of showing poor judgement so that we can excuse the even-more-questionable judgement of her husband and his second wife by saying they were too young at the time, when they were actually a few years older than she was, strikes me as bizarre. I’m willing to give Charles and Camilla a pass for being intimidated by older relatives when they were still practically kids, but that just makes what they did to Diana even worse. And it’s a little creepy how much you can google on these three in five minutes or less.

    Of course, ultimately, it doesn’t matter to me or to any of those who obsessively read this stuff as some sort of real-life fairy tale with clear-cut good and bad. It’s easy to point fingers when you have no emotional involvement. Myself, I think it’s not my place to decide whether or not Charles and Camilla should get to enjoy their old age together. But I don’t think it’s necessary or appropriate for total strangers to blacken the name of Diana or anyone else they’ve never met, just to feel okay with a messy domestic situation that isn’t any of their business, either.

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment

More From New Adventures of Queen Victoria