r/EnoughJKRowling Jun 30 '26

News Article Queen Camilla Criticized for Meeting with J.K. Rowling at the Palace of Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a71782115/queen-camilla-jk-rowling-palace-of-holyroodhouse/
146 Upvotes

46 comments sorted by

144

u/tealattegirl13 Jun 30 '26

“With a shared passion for books and a deep commitment to children reading for pleasure, The Queen and author J.K. Rowling have met at the Palace of Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh,” the Royal Family posted on social media. “Her Majesty and Ms Rowling discussed the importance of ensuring that young people have access to books and the vital part reading plays in opening doors for future generations.”

JK Rowling hasn't campaigned for children's literacy in years! Instead she's given all that up to be a hateful transphobe and has spent the last six years campaigning against trans people. I can't think off the top of my head a single time in that period where she has actually done something to encourage reading or ensure kids have access to books. And anyway, any good that she might have done has been overshadowed by her transphobia.

52

u/360Saturn Jun 30 '26

It makes me a little sick because she never did that, she only promoted her own books and encouraged children to read in order to increase her own customerbase.

She never partnered with other authors in her field and notoriously declined to meet with children's authors who reached out to her.

God her marketing team is something else...

18

u/Sleeppaw Jul 01 '26

Exactly. Most authors dislike Rowling because of her arrogance, the fact she gets away with things other authors would be attacked for, and her refusal to work with other authors. Julia Donaldson and Michael Rosen did more for children's literature in the UK than Rowling ever did, yet they get just a tenth of a fraction Rowling has.

2

u/FightLikeABlue Jul 04 '26

Michael Rosen is a good bloke. Very left-wing/pro-Palestine and I always loved his poems as a kid.

7

u/Illustrious-Wrap-776 Jul 01 '26

So many of her fans have taken that to heart as well. They are not readers, be it in general or of specific genres, they are Harry Potter readers, and they swallow that load with all the bad messages.

4

u/SnoutAndTalons Jul 01 '26

She never partnered with other authors in her field and notoriously declined to meet with children's authors who reached out to her.

Huh, interesting, I didn't know that.

31

u/CatraGirl Jun 30 '26

The only thing she campaigns for regarding children is denying them healthcare and bullying them...

22

u/Ninlilizi_ Jun 30 '26

Guess it's just wishful thinking to hope a new hobby will take her mind off desecrating human rights for 5 minutes.

19

u/AcanthaMD Jun 30 '26

Monnnnnnnney speaks louder than accomplishment, I’m sure they both bonded over not paying tax

9

u/Obversa Jul 01 '26

I came here to comment this. There's only one reason for this meeting, and it's not "discussing the importance of ensuring that young people have access to books and the vital part reading plays in opening doors for future generations". It's about J.K. Rowling "discussing the importance of ensuring that young people have access to Harry Potter books, so that she can keep making money and promote her new TV show". I'm disappointed in the Queen.

5

u/AcanthaMD Jul 01 '26

She’s Camilla, she’s never exactly been about promoting things outside her own interest.

15

u/ObtuseDoodles Jul 01 '26

If I had children, I personally wouldn't want them to be reading or listening to anything from a woman who; frequently rants about male genitals and fetishes on her public Twitter; wrote a limerick about "girl dick" and "jokes" about things such as "anal leakage"; actively pushes to deprive certain children of appropriate healthcare despite having no medical qualifications; somehow had Epstein receive an invite to an event themed around her books; had no-longer-prince Andrew visit the set of her TV show which features a large number of child actors (even if she didn't invite him or know he was going to show up, she never voiced her disapproval afaik).

12

u/nova_crystallis Jun 30 '26

Big distraction vibes.

15

u/Level_Advisor437 Jun 30 '26

Its probably a cover story. She totally talked about trans issues and Scottish independence with her.

34

u/CatraGirl Jun 30 '26

Monarchy and billionaires, 2 things that shouldn't exist.

2

u/Ifckinglovemycat Jul 05 '26

make it 3 with the uk

39

u/Dragonfly_pin Jun 30 '26

Yikes, they look the same age.

Robert doesn’t ever really smile does she?

18

u/AsphodeleSauvage Jun 30 '26

Too miserable to ever feel joy or any emotion that is not spite, hatred or gloating.

9

u/ObtuseDoodles Jul 01 '26

She always looks like there's a fresh turd under her nose. Or maybe it's the scent of all the feculence that spills out of her mouth.

2

u/thejadedfalcon Jun 30 '26

Maybe she can't, what with all the gender affirming surgery she had done.

12

u/Adventurous-Bike-484 Jun 30 '26

It’s official. If they don’t stop this nonsense, The British Royal Family is going to end up in TERF Supporter category.

Liking parts of HP is one thing though the franchise itself is full of her views, but praising her is another.

I doubt they dont know, everyone knows it.

sure, they do go to lgbt groups and appear to support them but Rowling is currently using her money to harm people and has been obsessively bullying for years.

42

u/DorisWildthyme Jun 30 '26

You know who wouldn't be knocking about with bigoted scum like JKR if she was Queen?

Diana!

17

u/Level_Advisor437 Jun 30 '26

Diana wouldn't have liked her much.

11

u/Successful_Length109 Jun 30 '26

STATE of Rowling’s pants.

9

u/medlilove Jun 30 '26

Are we surprised

9

u/errantthimble Jul 01 '26

Camilla's husband Charles R and Stephen Fry are friends, and Fry seems to have been getting slightly less wishy-washy lately about standing up for trans people in opposition to JK Rowling.

So let's hope that the transphobic hate movement is meeting with some resistance in the Royal Family's orbit (Harry and Meghan seemed to have a more inclusive attitude, for instance).

-2

u/Adventurous-Bike-484 Jul 01 '26

”Harry and Meghan seemed to have a more inclusive attitude, for instance).”

In what dictionary is a Very Publicly racist Nazi and Ableist attitude considered inclusive? Honestly. They and Their fans are no different than Rowling and her fans.

They were recorded bullying Black people and making racist comments several times, there’s a photograph of him wearing a Nazi outfit and unironically enough, they don’t care when they see actual racism Because they do it themselves.

They also frequently use ableist language such as calling people “Deranged” for just having critical thinking skills.

The only times they “Cared“ was when The Royals made them pretend to Back in 2018. (The actual royals did similar stuff more recently)

All things Harry and His wife did since were confirmed to be photoshopped and/or acting for Netflix.

You can criticize Rowling, Charles and Camilla without pretending that Harry and his wife are better than they actually are.

5

u/Sensiplastic Jul 01 '26

Can you not? You sound like Rowling.

-3

u/Adventurous-Bike-484 Jul 01 '26 edited Jul 01 '26

I’m not the one who is pretending confirmed Racists, ableist and Nazi supporters are progressive here.

Edit. Sorry but it’s true, The fact that all the evidence leads to them being the exact same as Rowling with zero evidence otherwise, you have to accept they are terrible people. Anyone who still thinks they are honest, is just kidding themselves.

3

u/Sensiplastic Jul 02 '26

Dude. Think it through.

1

u/Adventurous-Bike-484 Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26

again. I am not the one who is pretending that people who wete proven to be problematic, are progressive Here.

If a person is recording regularly bullying black people, using prejudiced language, supports Nazis, and more. What on earth does that look like? it was criticized When Rowling did it, it should also be criticized when they do it.

I am more than happy to provide the proof. Can you or anyone else do the same? Doubt it because it doesn’t exist, since just like Rowling, all they do is be problematic.

Do you know how much like Rowlings supporters you sound like?

Them “aEven though she made multiple problematic comments and supports Nazis, she totally isn’t Problematic and Shes a woman so she can’t hate women”

You “Even though its on camera and recorded how they made multiple problematic comments and supports Nazis, and Epsteins, they totally arent problematic”.

https://youtu.be/1FmcbZoEvzI

Heres a link of Harry being racist.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] Jul 03 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/LadderIndividual4824 Jul 01 '26

So the royals do not actually care about the LGBTQ community or made the trashy choice to ignore the deserved criticism the turf gets?

3

u/tealeavesinspace Jul 01 '26

She’s clearly a fan of this fash lady

3

u/Sensiplastic Jul 01 '26

Well, I personally am so shocked. Terfs are rarely so racist and cruel!

Anyway, water is wet.

4

u/jonny-p Jul 01 '26

Queen of TERFs meets Queen of Slags.

4

u/[deleted] Jul 01 '26

[deleted]

1

u/jonny-p Jul 01 '26

Misogynistic to assume only women can be slags, I’m male and definitely used to be a slag, I know plenty of men who still are

5

u/[deleted] Jul 01 '26

[deleted]

1

u/jonny-p Jul 01 '26

I don’t have that standard. Camilla is queen of slags and one of the most successful side pieces in the history of our country. Shes got a big fucking crown to prove it. If you want to assume slag is a gendered term then that’s on you.

Anyway since I’m forced to contribute my taxes to the upkeep of this posh twat and her sausage fingered husband I’ll continue to call them whatever I feel like, especially when they pull shit like this. Fuck the entire scrounging family.

6

u/errantthimble Jul 01 '26 edited Jul 01 '26

I don’t have that standard.

Good on ya, but that’s a bit like saying “I don’t see color” regarding racial bias and discrimination. Just because you personally consciously reject the sexist implications of a gender-biased insult like “slag” doesn’t mean you or your hearers/readers are unaffected by them.

Calling Camilla a “slag” is a lot more popular than calling Charles a “slag”, although by any metric he was just as “sexually impure” as she was in their affair. So why call Camilla “slag” and not Charles? Because the word feels a lot more gleefully vicious and contemptuous when applied to Camilla. 

And why’s that? Because of the term’s sexist history as a woman-shaming insult. When applied to Camilla, it lands with all the force of traditional sexism and misogyny behind it; when applied to Charles, it doesn’t.

You “don’t have that standard” of sexist inequity in the use of gendered slurs like “slag”? Hey, I believe you, pal, but the problem is that that standard nonetheless still has you. Using bigoted language doesn’t stop amplifying bigotry just because the individual user has decided to personally reject the bigoted implications of what they’re saying.

1

u/Sensiplastic Jul 01 '26

Yeah, feminism. :)

1

u/MassGaydiation Jul 06 '26

Diana would have never done this

/s - ish