The British royal family, one of the most scrutinized institutions in the world, has been subject to countless debates and analyses. Its members are not just representatives of a country’s history, but embodiments of values, symbols of unity, and, increasingly, reflections of societal divides. This is especially true in the digital age, where the internet allows for daily discourse about their actions, decisions, and public personas.

Recently, a heated exchange between several Twitter users showcased the ongoing tensions between supporters of different members of the royal family—Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, Catherine (Kate), Duchess of Cambridge, and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. The discussion, largely between two users, David McDonald and an account called My Royalty Account, laid bare some of the longstanding grievances people harbor regarding the way the media and public have treated the royal women. At the heart of this discussion is the complex issue of double standards, misogyny, and the role of modernity in a very traditional institution.

Camilla and the “Slutshaming” Narrative

It all began with a remark about Camilla’s public persona, claiming she is “common” and that no title or crown could change that perception. Camilla has long been a controversial figure, especially considering her past relationship with King Charles III (then Prince Charles) while he was married to Princess Diana. This controversy has colored the public’s perception of her, especially in light of her past as “the other woman” in the much-publicized love triangle.

One user, My Royalty Account, argued that much of the criticism Camilla faced amounted to “slutshaming,” pointing out that Charles himself initially didn’t find her suitable to be the mother of his heir but kept her in his life as a “goodtime girl.” The user emphasized that misogyny played a significant role in how Camilla has been vilified over the years, particularly by those who view her as undeserving of her royal role.

The problem here isn’t just Camilla’s actions in the past but how her position as queen consort aligns with public expectations of “royal behavior.” Another user, David McDonald, pushed back on this narrative, accusing the original tweeter of trying to defend Meghan Markle by attacking Camilla. McDonald highlighted the hypocrisy in criticizing Camilla for her past while pretending to advocate for women’s rights by supporting Meghan.

Camilla, in her defense, has rarely spoken out publicly about these criticisms, instead quietly fulfilling her royal duties. However, the conversation raises important questions about the nature of her friendships and associations. My Royalty Account brought up the fact that Camilla has been friends with individuals accused of gross misogyny, including those who have attacked Meghan Markle. This leads to the ongoing debate about whether Camilla’s silence on these matters implicates her further, or whether she’s merely a product of the society she’s been a part of for so long.

Kate and the Crying Allegation

Then, there’s the issue of Kate, Duchess of Cambridge, and the infamous story of whether she made Meghan cry before her wedding to Prince Harry. This incident, revealed in Meghan’s bombshell interview with Oprah Winfrey, remains one of the most debated episodes of the Sussexes’ departure from royal life. According to Meghan, Kate made her cry over a disagreement about bridesmaids’ dresses. However, before the Oprah interview, the media had consistently reported that it was Meghan who made Kate cry, further contributing to Meghan’s negative public image.

David McDonald quickly points out that both Harry and Meghan have been dishonest about certain issues, using that as a reason to doubt their account of events. He suggests that people are too quick to take Meghan’s side without considering that the truth might be more complex. He also accuses My Royalty Account of making up a narrative that Kate has never spoken about publicly, essentially allowing room for people’s imaginations to fill in the gaps.

What’s telling about this argument is the lack of an official denial from Kate. Meghan, during the Oprah interview, explicitly said that Kate apologized after the incident by bringing flowers to her home. If Kate knew the story was inaccurate, as many of her supporters claim, why hasn’t she taken any steps to correct the record? My Royalty Account points out that Kate’s staff regularly denies rumors about Botox and hair extensions, but hasn’t issued any public denial regarding the bridesmaid story or the allegations of racism within the royal family.

McDonald, playing devil’s advocate, admits that it’s possible Kate could be in the wrong but doesn’t believe it’s enough to label anyone involved as a villain. His approach highlights a broader issue in the royal narrative wars—both sides have made mistakes, and both Meghan and Kate may have dealt poorly with the intense pressures of royal life. However, he insists that such personal flaws don’t justify the vitriol directed at either woman.

Meghan and the Misogyny Allegations

At the heart of this discourse is Meghan Markle, who has been the subject of a vicious media campaign since her relationship with Prince Harry became public. My Royalty Account brings up an important point about how many of Camilla’s close friends have harassed Meghan publicly. One such example is British television personality Jeremy Clarkson, who suggested throwing excrement at Meghan. Such comments reflect a broader pattern of media-fueled misogyny that Meghan has endured for years.

The argument here focuses on how the royal family, particularly Camilla, has allowed such individuals into their inner circles, effectively endorsing their behavior through silence. The question becomes, what responsibility does Camilla bear for her associations? Could she not have publicly distanced herself from these individuals? On the other hand, David McDonald argues that even if this is the case, attacking Camilla for her friendships doesn’t make it acceptable to hound Kate for her alleged wrongdoings.

The hypocrisy of the British media and royal fans becomes even clearer in this context. Meghan has been criticized for trying to modernize the royal family and make it more relatable, yet her efforts are often met with hostility. In contrast, Kate, who is more traditional, has been shielded from much of the same criticism, despite accusations that her actions may have contributed to Meghan’s emotional distress.

A Reflection on the Royal Divide

This exchange between McDonald and My Royalty Account is a microcosm of the broader cultural divide surrounding the British royal family. Camilla, Kate, and Meghan represent three very different archetypes within the monarchy—Camilla as the controversial outsider who became accepted, Kate as the traditional, dutiful royal, and Meghan as the modern, outspoken newcomer who challenged the status quo.

Each of these women has been shaped by public expectations, media narratives, and personal choices, but the way they are treated highlights the deeper issues of misogyny, classism, and racism that persist in discussions about the royal family. The question of whether Camilla should be “forgiven” for her past or if Kate should publicly address the crying story is less important than the underlying patterns of media-driven character assassination, where one’s actions are weaponized based on broader biases rather than the truth.

In the end, these discussions about the royal women reveal more about the biases and values of those debating than the actual merits of each case. The monarchy, as an institution, remains a complex and often contradictory symbol of tradition and change. However, as long as public discourse centers on personal attacks rather than constructive discussions, the cycles of media manipulation and fan-fueled arguments will continue to plague the narrative surrounding the royal family.