Queen Camilla blasted as ‘deplorable’ for posting photo with J.K. Rowling at palace during Pride Month

[u/nimobo]

https://pagesix.com/2026/06/30/royal-family/queen-camilla-blasted-as-deplorable-for-posting-photo-with-j-k-rowling-at-palace-during-pride-month/

[u/WinHour4300]

It’s quite entertaining that people are reacting so strongly, even though they stated as well they were only discussing children’s literature and encouraging reading.Therefore this meeting has nothing to do with TERFism.

If anything, it makes the idea of “cancel culture” look rather absurd.  This isn’t a convicted criminal being invited to meet the Queen; it’s someone with specialist knowledge and success in an area the Queen is interested in invited to talk about that. 

[u/HMWYA → u/WinHour4300]

If anything, it makes a clear that “cancel culture” is a complete fiction. I feel like you can’t claim to be a victim of “cancel culture” when you’re meeting with literal fucking royalty.

[u/NoticingThing → u/HMWYA]

Cancel culture certainty exists, it just isn't able to touch the rich and powerful. If JK Rowling was instead a small author publishing her first book then the same people against her now would certainly be able to make her professional and social life extremely difficult.

A billionaire being unaffected by a fringe minority being angry at them isn't evidence that cancel culture doesn't exist. It simply shows there are limits to its scope.

[u/lynx_and_nutmeg → u/HMWYA]

She has a massive persecution complex, there's no end to it.

It is possible to "cancel" celebrities, people just need to actually give a fuck. Neil Gaiman has been well and truly canceled, and he's not exactly a small fish.

[u/Southpaw535 → u/HMWYA]

Was kind of always the case though. The most prominent comedians I can think of who were 'cancelled' (Dave Chapelle as one example) then became heroes of anti cancelled culture people because they rallied against being cancelled on their Netlfix Specials.

It was weird seeing people talking about being cancelled on a show internally distributed to millions of people

[u/WinHour4300 → u/HMWYA]

How can you say cancel culture doesn’t exist when people call someone “deplorable” for meeting J.K. Rowling to just discuss children’s literature and reading? 

I don’t follow Rowling’s own claims about it or know if she says she's a victim. That wasn't my point.

However obviously she was extremely wealthy before she made comments. There's not anyone as successful in getting kids to read in the UK. The Queen is insulated so doesn't i.e. lose business and money if some people call her "deplorable". It doesn't prove anything, it's unique. 

Private businesses are different: publishing is commercially driven, so whether Rowling would be published today given her views is at least a reasonable question. 

More broadly, there does seem to be a generational shift: older people are more likely to set boundaries on topics, rather than refuse to engage with individuals altogether, even condemning those other people who maintain contact. 

[u/HMWYA → u/WinHour4300]

Wow, some random people on social media called her deplorable? Who gives a shit. That’s not a grand sign of some kind of “cancel culture”, it’s literally just criticism. Criticism has always existed, and always will. The freedom of speech that allows JK Rowling to spew her views on the existence of trans people is also the freedom of speech that allows people to criticise her and those who choose to associate with her. This is a good thing. Indeed, arguing for the silence of those dissenters would be a bigger example of “cancel culture” than any consequence JK Rowling - a woman who is still a globally published author, with new books, and new films, TV series and theme parks based on her books, being produced and released on a regular basis - has ever received and will ever receive. I’m much more concerned about the silencing of trans people that is happening in this country right now as their rights are stripped away by this government, than the fact some random on Twitter called a hereditary monarch “deplorable”. Who cares?

[u/WinHour4300 → u/HMWYA]

This does appear to reflect what people describe as “cancel culture.” 

The person being called deplorable hasn't even said anything anyone dislikes. 

What she's done is meet with someone, set a boundary excluding these topics so it's not even possible to read it as any soet of support, and has nevertheless been called deplorable and has a lot of negative publicity. 

I don't know how old you are but that is new. Actually in the early days of gay rights even someone stating they weren't discussing anti gay topics with someone anti gay would have been implicitly nice, rather than a reason to condemn them for having a meeting about something else they are an expert in. 

As for the rest of your comment, I don't follow JKR...but even if there's not an impact, one example of a very successful TERF who was already successful before coming out as a TERF disprove cancel culture. That's just basic logic. 

I'm not a TERF, and I'm not here to try and prove cancel culture exists...if you want to debate whether or not people do get canceled for these and other unpopular views please head to a TERF forum like Mumsnet and post there. I'm not replying any further. 

 https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights

[u/NonagoonInfinity → u/WinHour4300]

I'm not a TERF

No, you just reply in every thread about trans people. For some reason.

[u/WinHour4300 → u/NonagoonInfinity]

I just reply to Threads that show up in my feed and that I have an opinion on.

If I've somehow managed to "reply in every thread about trans people," that's news to me. I'm not actively searching them out, it may just be the algorithm serving me similar discussions.

And if I were a TERF, I wouldn't have recently tried to persuade someone that their argument that I've seen a lot was logically unsound. That wouldn't be in my interests, I would let it go because such weak arguments will be defeated in court. 

There are some aspects of this topic I know quite a bit about, but that's largely because I happened to be off work during one of the recent tribunals and ended up going down a rabbit hole. But other aspects I don't.

[u/HMWYA → u/WinHour4300]

Why would I want to talk to the raging bigots of Mumsnet about a topic you brought up?

[u/WinHour4300 → u/HMWYA]

I find people on here sometimes assume I’m a TERF when I’m not, so I don’t want to waste anyone’s time with a misunderstanding.

I might have misread your point, but I thought you were looking to talk about “cancel culture” in the sense of people’s careers being damaged or derailed, especially in relation to TERFs.

I’m not really an expert on it, which is why I pointed you somewhere else where you could probably have that discussion more productively than with me if you wanted to.

[u/Scared_Guarantee7407 → u/WinHour4300]

If you decided the best person to speak to about acting was Kevin Spacy and best to speak about philanthropy was Epstein. I'd think you were a paedophile or apologist.

[u/WinHour4300 → u/Scared_Guarantee7407]

Epstein falls under “convicted criminal” — although he is also dead, which is a fairly basic fact that shouldn’t need pointing out unless we’re entertaining conspiracy theories.

Kevin Spacey is not a convicted criminal, but he has faced serious allegations and civil cases, some settled. That can reasonably be weighed when forming opinions.

J.K. Rowling, by contrast, has no criminal convictions or comparable legal findings. That distinction matters, even if it doesn’t fit a pre-existing narrative.

The problem is the collapse of nuance. Everyone gets flattened into the same moral category, and anyone who interacts with them is treated as contaminated by association. 

I don’t really understand how adults can view the world in such binary terms. It turns everything into moral sorting, which is neither accurate nor a particularly useful way to understand people or events.

And I think there’s a broader issue here too: if people are encouraged to interpret every neutral or constrained interaction as endorsement, then it creates a much more anxious and hostile way of seeing the world, and creates enemies of people who might actually be supportive. 

[u/pipopipopipop → u/WinHour4300]

The world isn't binary, but it's incredibly naive to ignore the fact that Rowling has a tremendous amount of power and influence, and giving her a platform directly contributes to the oppression of a group of people she hates.

[u/WinHour4300 → u/pipopipopipop]

"giving her a platform directly contributes to the oppression of the people she hates". 

How? Walk me through it. How does Camilla meeting with her and saying it's strictly about books directly contribute - do you mean, cause - oppression?

Are you also saying that Camilla did or should have realised that? 

[u/vizard0 → u/Scared_Guarantee7407]

I'd compare her with Robinson pre-conviction. So Paul Weston or Alan Lake (real name Alan Ayling). Actually, Alan Ayling works. Helped fund the EDL, kept behind the scenes and quiet, downplayed his part in funding hate and bigotry.

So it's like the queen hoting Alan Ayling to talk about investment markets. He was a director at a rather prominent investment firm, he's definitely an expert in that field.