@aveovershares: Why am I lowkey impressed with this absolute nightmare of a woman? #badromance #toxic #royals #History #historicaldrama

lady_sara_noir :

This would make for a wild tv-series

Sweetiecakes :

Nah, not a little. I am breathtakingly impressed

surrahgrace185 :

My attention span is fine

Renvte :

Impressed? Im in LOVE with this woman

Brooke LeeAnne Tummo :

I'd like to hear Katherine's side

Psyche🦋 :

How I wish to be described

phoebe Kellock :

Do u have a podcast????

Alex Johnson :

Omg this woman is my hero where is the movie/HBO mini series?!

triggrhippi :

I did my masters thesis on Charles II, it was about his public image, but lord, you could write a hundred books on Barbara. I would recommend the BBC miniseries where she is played by Helen McCrory if you haven't already seen

🔮Ari💫 :

the poor queen :((

Anti Republican Girlboss :

Bleu :

Cathy mentioned ❤️

Mom Finds with Lauren :

Charles II and his mistresses are my favorite topic thank you for this, his wife is the most tragic figure I had ever read about

Gen X Queen🇦🇺 :

You've got to respect it

Bella Ben-Nun :

I want it on my screen in series form, please.😭

IndigoGarnet :

I already love her. 🤣

Cinderella Historian :

I find Nell more fascinating than Barbara. Barbara sounds like a nightmare. I love Nell.

arundel3 :

Our future King is descended from Barbara….Prince William is a descendant of Barbara Villiers (1640–1709), the Duchess of Cleveland and a prominent mistress of King Charles II. Through his mother, Diana, Princess of Wales, who was descended from two of Charles II and Villiers' illegitimate sons, William is a descendant of this lineage.

Lily :

sorry for the queen but iconic of her

Gabrielle 🤍 :

Dare I say, I love her?

Thea 🌻 :

See? my attention span is fine

#SEBYD :

An Icon.

Chan (short for Chandra) :

Pretty weird way to find out who I was in a past life 🤣🤣🤣

ratcliffkayla :

Kristen Doute coded love her

skhgeolbahka :

The title “royal mistress” really needs to be questioned in this context. In the case of Barbara Palmer, she wasn’t just an unmarried woman involved with a king, she was married, and so was Charles II. So why are we defaulting to a term like “mistress,” which almost sanitizes the situation? This was mutual infidelity. Both were married, both chose to engage in the affair, and both should be held equally accountable. Using titles like “royal mistress” might be historically accurate, but it can also gloss over the reality of what actually happened. It frames the woman in a specific role while often downplaying the king’s responsibility or the fact that this wasn’t a one-sided dynamic. If we’re going to discuss history critically, then we should be honest about it, this wasn’t just a “mistress” situation, it was two married people engaging in repeated betrayal.