The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #741  
Old 09-25-2007, 08:52 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,020
Quote:
Originally Posted by miraglia1983 View Post
I do think that Prince Albert is in love with Charlene and seems to have been after her for many years now. Perhaps when he first noticed her, she was too young to date and perhaps Prince Rainier would have been upset by this. It seems that once he became the Sovereign Prince, he made the decision to go ahead with his emotions regardless of how much younger she is. Maybe to him her being an olympic swimmer and their shared interest in sports was the most captivating feature to him. We all know how much he loves sports and his companion must also in order to share this important aspect in his life. I think that it is up to him to marry her and give her an important role in the Principality and with his help and guidance I think she is capable of performing the duties of Princess of Monaco. But this she cannot do on her own. He needs to formalize their relationship and then she will have the green light to shine on her own. But for now, she can't, she is his girlfriend. If I were her, I would try even now to take an active role in the Principality, but maybe she is not allowed. Who knows what he is waiting for, maybe for her to adjust to this new way of life. She will have good tools and resources with Princess Caroline's and Stephanie's foundations as well. Hopefully they will allow her to participate in them. But all of this is up to Prince Albert. I do think he is in love and I see she seems to be also. What this relationship needs is formality and it is up to him.
I have to disagree, I do not think that Albert is in love with this girl.

If a man loves a woman, he marries her. He would commit - he does not say so clearly in public the things that Albert has said so many times published and on video for all to know, especially in supposed consideration of the girl's feelings. If he loved her, that is.

I do not think Albert wants to risk losing credibility with his subjects with a useless untruth on the issue of 'is he marrying her or not' because it's just not worth it.

Albert has tried to make it a non-issue by stating clearly that it is not his intention to marry Charlene. But that does not mean he could not change his mind and if he did, it would be his own business.
__________________

  #742  
Old 09-26-2007, 04:10 AM
lckc571's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Metz, France
Posts: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin View Post
I am sure you make some great points but can you tell those of us who are out of the loop exactly WHAT is wrong with the picture you posted? She looks lovely. Coy, perhaps yes. But selfish and self-absorbed?? I just don't see how you are getting that impression from this photo.

But again, perhaps I'm missing it.
??? In no way, in no way!! I am sorry for you! This photo shows a cunning glance, the self-portrait kind " look at me I am with Prince Albert "!!! All my friends who saw this photo said to me that they found this horrible girl. Not that she is ugly but her glance, they appreciate in no way!! And I do not speculate, look at her eyes!!!
__________________

  #743  
Old 09-26-2007, 07:14 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: ELKTON, United States
Posts: 368
I think Charlene trying to look like she is very shy and innocent but came off as it all about me.
  #744  
Old 09-26-2007, 08:34 AM
MyAdia's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin View Post
I am sure you make some great points but can you tell those of us who are out of the loop exactly WHAT is wrong with the picture you posted? She looks lovely. Coy, perhaps yes. But selfish and self-absorbed?? I just don't see how you are getting that impression from this photo.

But again, perhaps I'm missing it.
What is wrong with this picture? First, CaliforniaDreamin, you are right. Charlene does look lovely in that picture. I've always stated that Charlene was attractive. I just do not find her as beautiful as some posters and the media think that she is. I do find her very photogenic. She has great features, especially her eyes, I think they are beautiful. But, I've seen the close-up pictures of her with out the glossed over photo shopping and her skin in haggard, she has a lot of wrinkles around her eyes, and her profile is less than to be desired. Also, I come from a culture where women with curves are considered to have a great figure - and not just being tall and thin. So, I don't agree with the masses that consider a woman with no breast, no waist, no butt, no hips, and broad shoulders to have a great figure, as they say about Charlene. Actually, I saw a recent picture of Princess Beatrice with her mother on the catwalk (and a pic of Beatrice in a bikini) and for the first time she wasn't wearing frumpy clothing. I think that she has a good figure who would look smoking hot with a shedding of a few pounds. She really does have an hourglass figure, which I find more attractive than a figure like Charlene's (it's just my standard that's all).

So, all this to say that you aren't missing anything if someone's looks are the most important thing about them. Well, I think also Charlene was praised because there is nothing negative about her - in the royal world it seems negativity is now mostly defined as having out-of-wedlock children, affairs, or a previous marriage. I always found the child criteria extremely hypocritical and illogical, since the immorality in many cultures and religion is the engagement in out-of-wedlock sex (which most if not all the new European brides have had and many have lived with their husband to be prior to the wedding). An out-of-wedlock child is only the product of the immorality and irresponsibility (or on purpose or faulty) with birth control. There is nothing else of substance about these women that seems to matter. Hence, the outcome is a new crop of fashion-obsessed princesses or princess wannabees where their success is judge solely by how well they look and dress. So, Charlene is lovely, she has no children, and she has never been married and for many she's perfect.

What are you missing? In this particular picture - her behavior. While everyone else is watching the opening ceremony, she has spotted the camera and is watching it. I don't have access to my files of pictures, but there is a series of pictures of her doing exactly this. Some of us think that it was a deliberate attempt to let the public know that she is Prince Albert's lover, which she actually stated. Her behavior and statements were unprecedented for any of the other girls that he has EVER taken out in public for the first time. NEVER has any other date done such a thing. Even the serious press covered her Turin debut and her statements were widely overheard and reported. This is Charlene's response when asked about how she is enjoying Turin from LeFigaro: "Turin n'est pas seulement joli, mais également très romantique. Un lieu de vacances idéal pour deux amoureux». Interrogée sur un éventuel mariage, elle s'est bornée à dire: «Les jeux Olympiques sont la priorité et je me prépare pour les JO de 2008 à Pékin». (Turin is not only beautiful, but equally very romantic. An ideal vacation for two lovers. Questioned about a possible marriage, She contented herself with saying: "The Olympic Games are the priority and I get ready for JO of 2008 in Beijing."). What's missing? Charlene says one thing, but the spirit and action behind her words contradict her statements. After Turin, Charlene spent 2006 traveling the world and parading around Monaco with Albert. She was listed to compete in SA's national championship in April 2006 and she scratched. After Turin, her first competition was in Dec 2006 for two relay events where none of the top swimmers competed.

It's always been about her behavior, attitude, and motivation for me. With Albert's resources and money, I believe any woman that he marries will look good. Things of substance is cultured and nourished at an early age and illuminates from a person. It’s a shine and it doesn’t originate from someone’s blondness, eye color, or figure. What's missing? Substance.
  #745  
Old 09-26-2007, 10:39 AM
MyAdia's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 254
There’s a Sep 6, 2007 Australian Women's Weekly article about Albert and Charlene titled, "Do we hear wedding bells?" by William Langley. The article is short (392 words) and since I haven’t seen it on their website, I’ll summarize it and report the things that I haven’t seen before. Basically, most of the article repeats the same stuff about the couple: she’s a shapely cool blond; she looks like Grace Kelly, the Monegasques were intrigue with her when she came to Monte Carlo; and Albert’s chances are limited by getting married by his 50th birthday because of Charlene’s statements about having a last crack at the Olympics. Here are some other quotes. As always, believe what you want.

Quote:
She's back! A year after the collapse of her promising romance with Prince Albert of Monaco, shapely South African Olympic swimmer Charlene Wittstock is back in the ageing royal's embrace - and this time, the pair is making no attempt to play down their relationship.

Ironically, it was during an 18-month absence from swimming, caused by injury, that she first became close to Albert. In late 2005, the prince was in Cape Town to open a Monaco consulate and met Charlene at the reception.

A romance quickly developed and she followed him back to Monte Carlo.

Would she become their new princess and restore some of the magic the principality had missed for so long? The answer, sadly, appeared to be no because, within a year, Charlene had vanished from Albert's side. It was murmured he had dropped her because she was "uneducated", while according to other sources, she had left him in frustration at his refusal to propose.
  #746  
Old 09-26-2007, 10:56 AM
bbb's Avatar
bbb bbb is offline
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: lake texoma, United States
Posts: 1,060
just my opinion but alberts a fool and monaco's in big trouble if they are counting on charlene to "restore magic" to the principality. it may just be me but imo she just doesn't have "it" and a new hair cut and complete makeover isn't the answer. finding an educated woman with class and compassion with a giving spirit and personality should be his top priority. how long do mid-life crisis last anyway? imo there's plenty of magic when caroline and her gorgeous children are present at events, charlene is a non-starter for me.
  #747  
Old 09-26-2007, 11:14 AM
rarotonga's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbb View Post
just my opinion but alberts a fool and monaco's in big trouble if they are counting on charlene to "restore magic" to the principality. it may just be me but imo she just doesn't have "it" and a new hair cut and complete makeover isn't the answer. finding an educated woman with class and compassion with a giving spirit and personality should be his top priority. how long do mid-life crisis last anyway? imo there's plenty of magic when caroline and her gorgeous children are present at events, charlene is a non-starter for me.
Just look at CP Mathilde and and Princess Maxima. They're using their background to bring attention and create dialogue concerning microfinance. How about HM Queen Rania of Jordan? Some may critique her seeming obssession with haute couture, but she can attract an audience and hold an educated conversation at the World Economic Forum. She works with the UN Foundation and other high-profile political, social and economic forums. It is women like them that would help bring political legitimacy to Monaco (aside from internal housekeeping, of course).
  #748  
Old 09-26-2007, 11:32 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 1,025
Quote:
Originally Posted by rarotonga View Post
Just look at CP Mathilde and and Princess Maxima. They're using their background to bring attention and create dialogue concerning microfinance. How about HM Queen Rania of Jordan? Some may critique her seeming obssession with haute couture, but she can attract an audience and hold an educated conversation at the World Economic Forum. She works with the UN Foundation and other high-profile political, social and economic forums. It is women like them that would help bring political legitimacy to Monaco (aside from internal housekeeping, of course).
Charlene is not in there league. She does not have their education, she does not have their diplomatic skills ( rugby match comments as example), she does not have their pose or grace nor their manners nor their refinement. Even if you eliminated the education portion she is simply not in their league. They are to be respected for their intelligence and contributions. Rania may like her couture but she uses it with the grace and pose of someone in her position. She is always dressed in excellent taste even when she wears blue jeans. With all due respect for your opinions I just have to differ with you on this one.

In fairness Charlene as yet has not been granted a true position to do what they do because she has no status, not wife, not fiance, and most recently simply referred to as friend or just Charlene. No position at all. Albert in fact has put her in an awkward position but one that she has accepted. It sadly looks like that of a public mistress. It's such a shame for Monaco.
  #749  
Old 09-26-2007, 12:08 PM
MyAdia's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by hibou View Post
Charlene is not in there league. She does not have their education, she does not have their diplomatic skills ( rugby match comments as example), she does not have their pose or grace nor their manners nor their refinement. Even if you eliminated the education portion she is simply not in their league. They are to be respected for their intelligence and contributions...
Well, I cannot easily dismiss the education portion. The problem is not just that Charlene doesn't have a formal education, because in the U.S. we have athletes who have graduated from high school AND college who are functionally illiterate. What Charlene stated in her Paris Match interview is that her grades didn't matter to her only swimming. So the debate whether she finished high school is a mute point for me. She showed me something more important - her performance and attitude toward learning. This is a woman who is telling you that she attended school and performing well and learning didn't matter to her. Compare this to someone like Princess Mathilde who returned to school and completed her masters degree even AFTER she married her prince. That's substance people.

Substance for Charlene is telling a reporter on April 15, 2007 (article) that she can return to Europe because the tabloids will leave her alone because, ""I feel now that they respect the fact that I have a career, and that I need my space." Charlene has created a farce of a career instead of actually re-examing her life and matching her skills to something that she can give back and make a difference. Actually, she has created her space even more in the public in front of the media since she returned to Monaco. Her words are shallow. But, I will give her due credit for her determination - she has that ten-fold. How can one respect her for her intelligence?
  #750  
Old 09-26-2007, 12:50 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 6,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by lckc571 View Post
??? In no way, in no way!! I am sorry for you! This photo shows a cunning glance, the self-portrait kind " look at me I am with Prince Albert "!!! All my friends who saw this photo said to me that they found this horrible girl. Not that she is ugly but her glance, they appreciate in no way!! And I do not speculate, look at her eyes!!!

Well...okay. If you say so. I don't agree but I certainly respect your opinion.
  #751  
Old 09-26-2007, 01:01 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 6,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyAdia View Post
What is wrong with this picture? First, CaliforniaDreamin, you are right. Charlene does look lovely in that picture. I've always stated that Charlene was attractive. I just do not find her as beautiful as some posters and the media think that she is. I do find her very photogenic. She has great features, especially her eyes, I think they are beautiful. But, I've seen the close-up pictures of her with out the glossed over photo shopping and her skin in haggard, she has a lot of wrinkles around her eyes, and her profile is less than to be desired. Also, I come from a culture where women with curves are considered to have a great figure - and not just being tall and thin. So, I don't agree with the masses that consider a woman with no breast, no waist, no butt, no hips, and broad shoulders to have a great figure, as they say about Charlene. Actually, I saw a recent picture of Princess Beatrice with her mother on the catwalk (and a pic of Beatrice in a bikini) and for the first time she wasn't wearing frumpy clothing. I think that she has a good figure who would look smoking hot with a shedding of a few pounds. She really does have an hourglass figure, which I find more attractive than a figure like Charlene's (it's just my standard that's all).

So, all this to say that you aren't missing anything if someone's looks are the most important thing about them. Well, I think also Charlene was praised because there is nothing negative about her - in the royal world it seems negativity is now mostly defined as having out-of-wedlock children, affairs, or a previous marriage. I always found the child criteria extremely hypocritical and illogical, since the immorality in many cultures and religion is the engagement in out-of-wedlock sex (which most if not all the new European brides have had and many have lived with their husband to be prior to the wedding). An out-of-wedlock child is only the product of the immorality and irresponsibility (or on purpose or faulty) with birth control. There is nothing else of substance about these women that seems to matter. Hence, the outcome is a new crop of fashion-obsessed princesses or princess wannabees where their success is judge solely by how well they look and dress. So, Charlene is lovely, she has no children, and she has never been married and for many she's perfect.

What are you missing? In this particular picture - her behavior. While everyone else is watching the opening ceremony, she has spotted the camera and is watching it. I don't have access to my files of pictures, but there is a series of pictures of her doing exactly this. Some of us think that it was a deliberate attempt to let the public know that she is Prince Albert's lover, which she actually stated. Her behavior and statements were unprecedented for any of the other girls that he has EVER taken out in public for the first time. NEVER has any other date done such a thing. Even the serious press covered her Turin debut and her statements were widely overheard and reported. This is Charlene's response when asked about how she is enjoying Turin from LeFigaro: "Turin n'est pas seulement joli, mais également très romantique. Un lieu de vacances idéal pour deux amoureux». Interrogée sur un éventuel mariage, elle s'est bornée à dire: «Les jeux Olympiques sont la priorité et je me prépare pour les JO de 2008 à Pékin». (Turin is not only beautiful, but equally very romantic. An ideal vacation for two lovers. Questioned about a possible marriage, She contented herself with saying: "The Olympic Games are the priority and I get ready for JO of 2008 in Beijing."). What's missing? Charlene says one thing, but the spirit and action behind her words contradict her statements. After Turin, Charlene spent 2006 traveling the world and parading around Monaco with Albert. She was listed to compete in SA's national championship in April 2006 and she scratched. After Turin, her first competition was in Dec 2006 for two relay events where none of the top swimmers competed.

It's always been about her behavior, attitude, and motivation for me. With Albert's resources and money, I believe any woman that he marries will look good. Things of substance is cultured and nourished at an early age and illuminates from a person. It’s a shine and it doesn’t originate from someone’s blondness, eye color, or figure. What's missing? Substance.

MyAdia, with all due respect, your detailed synopsis of this one little photo goes much farther than my question. WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THE PHOTO?? I have no opinion of Ms Wittstock because other than what is reported of her in the media .I have never met the young woman. We have never had tea. I have never interviewed her family and friends. If she did indeed insult the French politican at the rugby match she is stupid and undiplomatic. But this says more about PA than it does her because he is content to parade the young woman around without a mentor.

What I find mind boggling about this forum is how so many of your are willing to judge this girl based on your SUBJECTIVE opinion of a photograph. If she is the monster some of you have assured us she is, why has there been not one leak in the press?? I went out and bought Paris Match last week for some type, ANY type of report on the incident with the French pol and I found nothing. Nada. Zip. Same for Le Monde.

The increasingly strident and personal attacks on this girl puzzled me when I first came here and they continue to do so. For the record, I don't think she is a great beauty either. But she is attractive enough. My honest opinion is that the Principality of Monaco is simply not important enough on the world stage where the Prince has to choose his bride as carefully as Spain, England,etc.

Why not wait and see if PA does indeed marry her, and then wait to judge her performance IF AND WHEN she becomes Princess? Is that out of the question?
  #752  
Old 09-26-2007, 02:25 PM
MyAdia's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin View Post
MyAdia, with all due respect, your detailed synopsis of this one little photo goes much farther than my question. WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THE PHOTO??
I went in to detailed becasue I and people like myself are used to posters berating us because of our non-glorification of Charlene solely based on her looks. So, I think your assessment of...
Quote:
What I find mind boggling about this forum is how so many of your are willing to judge this girl based on your SUBJECTIVE opinion of a photograph...
...is inaccurate. I tend not to judge Charlene based on what she looks like on photos. I have provided tons of information beyond pictures to show why I assess Charlene they way that I do. My opinion is objective and is mostly based on her own behavior, attitude, and actual statements. The irony is that my manner seems to upset people more so than if I would just say that I don't like her just because. Errol Morris wrote a great article for the New York Times (check out his blog) about assessing photos. He argues that believing is seeing and not the other way around. He states, "We do not form our beliefs on the basis of what we see; rather, what we see is determined by our beliefs. We see not what is there, but rather what we want to see or expect to see." I think this is clearly demonstrated on how different posters view Charlene. I would just appreciate it if people stop attacking those that don't see her the way that you may.
Quote:
I have no opinion of Ms Wittstock because other than what is reported of her in the media. I have never met the young woman. We have never had tea. I have never interviewed her family and friends.
What? First, I have read your opinions of Ms. Wittstock in this forum. You've stated it on many occasions. Second, I never quite understood the logic behind posters stating that if one hasn't met someone in person they cannot form an opinion about them. That simply is not true. I have never met, nor had tea, nor interviewed the family and friends of Jesus Christ, Hitler, Paris Hilton, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, or Prince Albert just to name a few. But, I can form an objective opinion about them.
Quote:
If she did indeed insult the French politican at the rugby match she is stupid and undiplomatic. But this says more about PA than it does her because he is content to parade the young woman around without a mentor.
If she is the monster some of you have assured us she is, why has there been not one leak in the press?? I went out and bought Paris Match last week for some type, ANY type of report on the incident with the French pol and I found nothing. Nada. Zip. Same for Le Monde.
I never said she was a monster and I agree that it is more a reflection of Prince Albert (maybe that's why he left her at home the next game). Thus far, I haven't read any posts stating that Charlene was a monster. That's more a reflection of your thinking and conclusions based on people's assessments of her. Second, the fact that the Rugby incident was reported in the SERIOUS press and not the tabloids is more telling. Yes, it was reported even in Le Monde (here's the link), Le Point, and Gente Mondial to name a few. The serious press hasn't reportred on Charlene and Albert's relationship beyond Charlene's first appearance with Prince Albert. That they chose to report this incident is a big deal. That one of those dignitaries had to link the information is a big deal. That anyone can think that her behavior wasn't rude and inconsiderate is absolutely mind-boggling to me (as another poster stated). I am used to people discounting any concrete evidence (or attacking the poster) that present Charlene in less than a glorifed light of what people think who she is based on her looks. So, I post at my own peril. It seems that anytime something is posted and discussed beyond a picture of Charlene where she is smiling and looking "lovely" beside Prince Albert is posted, we get the kind of remarks that you just hurled. Some people like looking at pictures and basing their opinions and discussions on the pictures and some - like me- want more. Why have a discussion board if you cannot discuss.
Quote:
The increasingly strident and personal attacks on this girl puzzled me when I first came here and they continue to do so. For the record, I don't think she is a great beauty either. But she is attractive enough. My honest opinion is that the Principality of Monaco is simply not important enough on the world stage where the Prince has to choose his bride as carefully as Spain, England,etc.
That's your opinion that Monaco is simply not important enough on the world where the Prince doesn't have to choose his bride carefully, but realize others may disagree with you.
Quote:
Why not wait and see if PA does indeed marry her, and then wait to judge her performance IF AND WHEN she becomes Princess? Is that out of the question?
This is another thing that is so illogically to me. I don't understand why people conclude that if someone thinks that a person is void of substance and sincerity AND is selfish and self-absorbed (as Charlene stated about herself) that these basic ingrained character traits will magically morph into something else once that person marries. It reminds me of women who think that their cheating boyfriends will change once they get married. Diana was manipulative, insecure, and condoned Prince Charles' relationship with Camilla before they got married. What magically changed once she got married? It doesn't happen.

This is a forum where people come to voice their opinions. There is no rule that says only one type of opinion is allowed. I express my opinion in a different manner than you do. I don't hurl insults at others because their opinions are different than mine. I just provide information (each can choose what they want to believe with the information) to accompany my opinion. I know this may be a little intimidating, but I don't form opinions based on what people look like. I find such assessments discriminatory. In my opinion, some of the glorification of Charlene in some of the German press, based soley on her blondness and blue eyes, is reminiscent of the Nazi propaganda.
  #753  
Old 09-26-2007, 03:27 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 1,025
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyAdia View Post
Well, I cannot easily dismiss the education portion. The problem is not just that Charlene doesn't have a formal education, because in the U.S. we have athletes who have graduated from high school AND college who are functionally illiterate. What Charlene stated in her Paris Match interview is that her grades didn't matter to her only swimming. So the debate whether she finished high school is a mute point for me. She showed me something more important - her performance and attitude toward learning. This is a woman who is telling you that she attended school and performing well and learning didn't matter to her. Compare this to someone like Princess Mathilde who returned to school and completed her masters degree even AFTER she married her prince. That's substance people.

Substance for Charlene is telling a reporter on April 15, 2007 (article) that she can return to Europe because the tabloids will leave her alone because, ""I feel now that they respect the fact that I have a career, and that I need my space." Charlene has created a farce of a career instead of actually re-examing her life and matching her skills to something that she can give back and make a difference. Actually, she has created her space even more in the public in front of the media since she returned to Monaco. Her words are shallow. But, I will give her due credit for her determination - she has that ten-fold. How can one respect her for her intelligence?
I personally don't dismiss education's importance either but I have been attacked for saying it is necessary. I thank you for supporting the argument for an education. I marvel at Princesses with graduate degrees and how they use them to better their countries and mankind. It is a stark contrast to Miss Wittstock. We can also agree on her determination. In addition, you have stated quite well using quotes from Miss Wittstock's interviews that illustrate what kind of person she is and I think there are enough interviews to validate the opinions you have given on her. I thank you for your research as well.
  #754  
Old 09-26-2007, 03:42 PM
bbb's Avatar
bbb bbb is offline
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: lake texoma, United States
Posts: 1,060
someone else said it best "when a person shows you who they are- believe them" i think i've seen who she is and imo she's lacking in all categories. no substance at all. she comes off as shallow and proud of it, not someone curious about the world's condition or interested in others less fortunate which i consider an important trait for a woman in the position she's aiming for- princess of monaco.
  #755  
Old 09-26-2007, 04:34 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 6,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyAdia View Post
I went in to detailed becasue I and people like myself are used to posters berating us because of our non-glorification of Charlene solely based on her looks. So, I think your assessment of...

...is inaccurate. I tend not to judge Charlene based on what she looks like on photos. I have provided tons of information beyond pictures to show why I assess Charlene they way that I do. My opinion is objective and is mostly based on her own behavior, attitude, and actual statements. The irony is that my manner seems to upset people more so than if I would just say that I don't like her just because. Errol Morris wrote a great article for the New York Times (check out his blog) about assessing photos. He argues that believing is seeing and not the other way around. He states, "We do not form our beliefs on the basis of what we see; rather, what we see is determined by our beliefs. We see not what is there, but rather what we want to see or expect to see." I think this is clearly demonstrated on how different posters view Charlene. I would just appreciate it if people stop attacking those that don't see her the way that you may.

What? First, I have read your opinions of Ms. Wittstock in this forum. You've stated it on many occasions. Second, I never quite understood the logic behind posters stating that if one hasn't met someone in person they cannot form an opinion about them. That simply is not true. I have never met, nor had tea, nor interviewed the family and friends of Jesus Christ, Hitler, Paris Hilton, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, or Prince Albert just to name a few. But, I can form an objective opinion about them.

I never said she was a monster and I agree that it is more a reflection of Prince Albert (maybe that's why he left her at home the next game). Thus far, I haven't read any posts stating that Charlene was a monster. That's more a reflection of your thinking and conclusions based on people's assessments of her. Second, the fact that the Rugby incident was reported in the SERIOUS press and not the tabloids is more telling. Yes, it was reported even in Le Monde (here's the link), Le Point, and Gente Mondial to name a few. The serious press hasn't reportred on Charlene and Albert's relationship beyond Charlene's first appearance with Prince Albert. That they chose to report this incident is a big deal. That one of those dignitaries had to link the information is a big deal. That anyone can think that her behavior wasn't rude and inconsiderate is absolutely mind-boggling to me (as another poster stated). I am used to people discounting any concrete evidence (or attacking the poster) that present Charlene in less than a glorifed light of what people think who she is based on her looks. So, I post at my own peril. It seems that anytime something is posted and discussed beyond a picture of Charlene where she is smiling and looking "lovely" beside Prince Albert is posted, we get the kind of remarks that you just hurled. Some people like looking at pictures and basing their opinions and discussions on the pictures and some - like me- want more. Why have a discussion board if you cannot discuss.

That's your opinion that Monaco is simply not important enough on the world where the Prince doesn't have to choose his bride carefully, but realize others may disagree with you.

This is another thing that is so illogically to me. I don't understand why people conclude that if someone thinks that a person is void of substance and sincerity AND is selfish and self-absorbed (as Charlene stated about herself) that these basic ingrained character traits will magically morph into something else once that person marries. It reminds me of women who think that their cheating boyfriends will change once they get married. Diana was manipulative, insecure, and condoned Prince Charles' relationship with Camilla before they got married. What magically changed once she got married? It doesn't happen.

This is a forum where people come to voice their opinions. There is no rule that says only one type of opinion is allowed. I express my opinion in a different manner than you do. I don't hurl insults at others because their opinions are different than mine. I just provide information (each can choose what they want to believe with the information) to accompany my opinion. I know this may be a little intimidating, but I don't form opinions based on what people look like. I find such assessments discriminatory. In my opinion, some of the glorification of Charlene in some of the German press, based soley on her blondness and blue eyes, is reminiscent of the Nazi propaganda.

Unless you are confusing me with someone else, you have not read any opinion from me on this board regarding Ms Wittstock's personality and character. I have stated many times that I admired a certain gown, or that I thought she was attractive, etc. I am a minority female and I couldn't care less about blond hair and blue eyes, so the reference to "Nazi propaganda" was a little out there, even for THIS place.


Thank you for the links you provided but I don't read Spanish, only French. And in the reader responses to the Gente Mondial article I find it fascinating that not ONE of the responses had a negative reaction to the incident with the French pol. As a matter of fact, when I read the article I changed my opinion. I had previously only read the recaps of it on this board, which made it sound like some huge international faux pas on the level of Laura Bush belching loudly at a State dinner at Buckingham Palace. Unbelievable.

I stand by my assertion that since no one at this Forum knows this woman personally, we have no true idea of her character flaws, motivations, etc. This forum is beginning to remind me of those 18th and 19th Centurys cabals and cliques one reads about in the memoirs of say...Saint Simon at the court of Lous XIV, where a bunch of women do nothing but sit around criticize, gossip and tear apart someone who is currently in favor at Court.

I'm also puzzled by your statement of being "attacked" by posters who are pro-Charlene.????? First of all, there are only one or two people here who have posted positive comments about the woman, I am among them. The positive comments are few and far between all the negativity. And I don't consider refuting or disagreeing with someone else's opinion "attacking" them. Attacking someone is calling them a name or denigrating them on some personal level....refuting or rejecting an opinion is NOT the same at all. At least not where I come from. I respect your opinion about Monaco, PA and CW. I just happen to disagree with it, which is fine.
  #756  
Old 09-26-2007, 04:58 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 1,025
According to the late Prince Rainier, Gossip was invented in Monaco. So I'm sure in that we can all agree. Any time opinions come into place it runs the risk of gossip. However, I think in MyAdia case she substanciates her position with direct quotes which is not gossip nor can it be exact gospel either but it is as close as one gets to hearing the person "speak" unless attending an event where a poster has overheard her (and we do have posters who have spoken to her and heard her) it is also true that things can be edited to sound differently than they were spoken, but Charlene has repeated her stories so often it appears to be reliabe that she said it.

The PM rugby incident made "hard" news not tabloid fodder which is interesting. Laura Bush's belch was not deliberate but unfortunate and there is a difference there to. Of course if Mrs. Bush did it deliberating - well then that's rude isn't it? To my knowledge mods and admin. on this forum don't let things get too nasty infact they err on the side of concervative. Other threads on the Royal forum on other royals are much worse than what I have read on the Monaco forums to be honest. I think it just comes with the territory of blogging. We all take hits for our opinions at some point. JMO
  #757  
Old 09-26-2007, 05:03 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 6,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by hibou View Post
According to the late Prince Rainier, Gossip was invented in Monaco. So I'm sure in that we can all agree. Any time opinions come into place it runs the risk of gossip. However, I think in MyAdia case she substanciates her position with direct quotes which is not gossip nor can it be exact gospel either but it is as close as one gets to hearing the person "speak" unless attending an event where a poster has overheard her (and we do have posters who have spoken to her and heard her) it is also true that things can be edited to sound differently than they were spoken, but Charlene has repeated her stories so often it appears to be reliabe that she said it.

The PM rugby incident made "hard" news not tabloid fodder which is interesting. Laura Bush's belch was not deliberate but unfortunate and there is a difference there to. Of course if Mrs. Bush did it deliberating - well then that's rude isn't it? To my knowledge mods and admin. on this forum don't let things get too nasty infact they err on the side of concervative. Other threads on the Royal forum on other royals are much worse than what I have read on the Monaco forums to be honest. I think it just comes with the territory of blogging. We all take hits for our opinions at some point. JMO

I read the "hard news" in the link she provided. If that was proof of some huge embarrassment or misstep on the part of CW I am going to have to say once again that the only controversy is here in these Forums(which doesn't surprise me at all)

The article mentioned no one being offended or angry. It simply reported the conversation. None of the readers who responded to the article seemed upset or offended either.
  #758  
Old 09-26-2007, 05:32 PM
MyAdia's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin View Post
Unless you are confusing me with someone else, you have not read any opinion from me on this board regarding Ms Wittstock's personality and character. I have stated many times that I admired a certain gown, or that I thought she was attractive, etc. I am a minority female and I couldn't care less about blond hair and blue eyes, so the reference to "Nazi propaganda" was a little out there, even for THIS place.


Thank you for the links you provided but I don't read Spanish, only French. And in the reader responses to the Gente Mondial article I find it fascinating that not ONE of the responses had a negative reaction to the incident with the French pol. As a matter of fact, when I read the article I changed my opinion. I had previously only read the recaps of it on this board, which made it sound like some huge international faux pas on the level of Laura Bush belching loudly at a State dinner at Buckingham Palace. Unbelievable.

I stand by my assertion that since no one at this Forum knows this woman personally, we have no true idea of her character flaws, motivations, etc. This forum is beginning to remind me of those 18th and 19th Centurys cabals and cliques one reads about in the memoirs of say...Saint Simon at the court of Lous XIV, where a bunch of women do nothing but sit around criticize, gossip and tear apart someone who is currently in favor at Court.

I'm also puzzled by your statement of being "attacked" by posters who are pro-Charlene.????? First of all, there are only one or two people here who have posted positive comments about the woman, I am among them. The positive comments are few and far between all the negativity. And I don't consider refuting or disagreeing with someone else's opinion "attacking" them. Attacking someone is calling them a name or denigrating them on some personal level....refuting or rejecting an opinion is NOT the same at all. At least not where I come from. I respect your opinion about Monaco, PA and CW. I just happen to disagree with it, which is fine.
Wow. You have provided a classic textbook example just with your last few posts that makes my point concerning Charlene. Please, indulge me. I have repeatedly stated that I have a problem with Charlene because her words are constantly contradicted by her actions and the spirit behind her words. Just today I provided her statement from Turin where she stated, "The Olympic Games are the priority and I get ready for JO of 2008 in Beijing." She repeated this claim in her Paris Match interview. Yet, many of us have noted that her actual behavior did not match her words. Even Charlene herself stated what it takes to make the Olympics. Again in 2001 she stated, I'm improving all the time over 200 meters and the more international racing I do throughout world, the more experience I will gain. “ Since her Turin debut with Albert, Charlene has NOT ONCE competed internationally. Thus, why some of opined that Charlene’s words are shallow and insincere. She says what she has to say at the moment, but the true spirit behind her words are revealed by her actions.

You seem to disagree with me and others on our assessment of Charlene. You just stated the following words to me and another poster about our comments concerning Charlene:
Well...okay. If you say so. I don't agree but I certainly respect your opinion.”
“MyAdia, with all due respect,…”,
“I respect your opinion about Monaco, PA and CW. I just happen to disagree with it,…”

These are great words CalifforniaDreamin! These are wonderful words that one would like to hear in an open forum. However, please understand one can easily question the true spirit and sincerity behind your mere words (as I and others have done about Charlene’s words) when you turn around minutes later and make statements such as these:

“…where a bunch of women do nothing but sit around criticize, gossip and tear apart someone who is currently in favor at Court.”
“What I find mind boggling about this forum is how so many of your are willing to judge this girl…”
“The increasingly strident and personal attacks on this girl…
Oops, originally you used the word cattiness to refer to our opinions, so I had to take it out the list.

Don’t you see, on one hand you state that you respect our right to have differing opinions, but yet you immediately turn around and berate us. Contradiction? Insincerity? Perhaps shallow words? This is how I view Charlene’s statement. That's all I have to say on this matter.
  #759  
Old 09-26-2007, 05:40 PM
MyAdia's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin View Post
I read the "hard news" in the link she provided. If that was proof of some huge embarrassment or misstep on the part of CW I am going to have to say once again that the only controversy is here in these Forums(which doesn't surprise me at all)

The article mentioned no one being offended or angry. It simply reported the conversation. None of the readers who responded to the article seemed upset or offended either.
Please read the Le Point article agian, which is where the story was first reported. The first word in the article is: Aggravated - used to describe's Fillon's feelings toward Charlene's behavior. How could you miss that?

To thwart any more distortions of what exactly what was reported, here's a rough translation:

Quote:
Aggravated by the cries of Charlene Wittstock, the friend of the Prince Albert II, at the time of the match of France-Argentina Rugby, Francois Fillon required of him, smile with the lips, and in English, to agree to calm herself. “I will stop when the French start to play”, answers her the South-African swimmer who supported the Argentinian team. Fillon: “Why, you know a little Rugby? ” Answer: “A little, my grandfather was the trainer of Springboks. ”
Do you honestly think that this would have been leaked/told to Le Point and then published if NO ONE was perturbed by her behavior? Unbelievable.
  #760  
Old 09-26-2007, 06:06 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 6,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyAdia View Post
Please read the Le Point article agian, which is where the story was first reported. The first word in the article is: Aggravated - used to describe's Fillon's feelings toward Charlene's behavior. How could you miss that?

To thwart any more distortions of what exactly what was reported, here's a rough translation:



Do you honestly think that this would have been leaked/told to Le Point and then published if NO ONE was perturbed by her behavior? Unbelievable.

Yeah. "Unbelievable" is an apt word to use because I read the article AGAIN and still don't come away with the impression that the man found CW's behavior some type of outrageous offense. This is indeed a very rough translation, because the verb "agacer" does not necessarily translate that he was mad at her support for the team, but maybe her shouts/cheers were surprising to him?? Why is it that when an article comes out in Bunte or Point de Vue or Paris Match that is complimentary to the girl there is immediate scoffing on this board that it is nothing but Palace propanganda by PA's minions, but when it is something that might be perceived as negative it is gleefully repeated and reported as gospel??

And again...several readers responded to the article(in Le Point) Where is the condemnation I am reading here??
__________________

Closed Thread

Tags
prince albert, prince albert ii, princess charlene, relationship


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
HSH Prince Albert Current Events 23 : July 2007 - Sept.2007 Zonk Current Events Archive 192 09-16-2007 11:28 PM
What do you think of Charlene? Zonk Prince Albert, Princess Charlene and Family 415 07-15-2007 01:57 PM
Jazmin Grace Grimaldi Current Events 3 : June 2006 - Jan.2007 Elspeth Current Events Archive 946 01-29-2007 09:55 PM
Charlene Wittstock Current Events 7 : Nov.2006 - Jan.2007 tbhrc Current Events Archive 201 01-11-2007 07:35 PM
A Wife for Albert part III Lyonnaise Prince Albert, Princess Charlene and Family 272 06-25-2006 08:38 PM




Popular Tags
andrew scott cooper ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style coronation coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events dictatorship duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy murder new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 october and november 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats princess mette-marit fashion and style queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania royal fashion september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:31 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises