The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #761  
Old 09-26-2007, 06:13 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 6,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyAdia View Post
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.

I don't have the time or inclination to respond to you point by point. I am beginning to feel somewhat like a spaniel chasing it's tail.

A couple of important things..making an OBSERVATION about the negative conduct on these boards does not constitue either an attack on your opinions on your right to it. At least one of the Moderators has commented on the negativity and has issued a warning about certain posters spreading unwarranted nastiness about CW on the Forums. Why was this necessary??

I did indeed remove the word"catty" because in retrospect I thought it was unnecessary and inappropriate. But my OBSERVATION about gossip at the court of Louis XIV stands. This is not a personal attack on you or anyone else. On the other hand questioning my sincerity certainly is, and I'd like to politely request that you not do it again. I am many things, insincere is not one.

I can and will continue to respect your right to have an opinion different from mine. If you feel that by refuting or disagreeing with your opinion I am "berating" or attacking you I don't know what to say. I suppose once again we are going to agree to disagree.

Vive la differance.

Just out of curiosity..I read a lot of outrage here about CW's "insincerity" regarding her swimming career. Perhaps she is being phony/insincere, but how do we know with 100% certainty that she is not training or preparing in some way? Is there some mole from the Palais Princier reporting on her day to day activities?
__________________

  #762  
Old 09-26-2007, 09:29 PM
Mandy's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: , United States
Posts: 6,927
I'm not putting up with bashing of another person anymore. This rehashing of old opinions has to stop.

I don't think that anyone can judge Charlene today according to yesterday's rules. This entire discussion is based on a 2001 interview, translated from what? We're talking about a time when she was totally dedicated to swimming. Of course, she had all those "nasty" attributes, like all other dedicated athletes. Some of the same attributes I had when I was studying for finals in my younger days. Some of the same attributes posters have when they want to prove their points.

Nothing is carved in rock; we can all change. I think it's time to move on, and see what Charlene can/not achieve. At least we'll have something new on which to comment. Or, are we too petty to give her a chance?

Mandy
Royal Forums Administrator
__________________

  #763  
Old 09-26-2007, 10:39 PM
MyAdia's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mandy View Post
I'm not putting up with bashing of another person anymore. This rehashing of old opinions has to stop.

I don't think that anyone can judge Charlene today according to yesterday's rules. This entire discussion is based on a 2001 interview, translated from what? We're talking about a time when she was totally dedicated to swimming. Of course, she had all those "nasty" attributes, like all other dedicated athletes. Some of the same attributes I had when I was studying for finals in my younger days. Some of the same attributes posters have when they want to prove their points.

Nothing is carved in rock; we can all change. I think it's time to move on, and see what Charlene can/not achieve. At least we'll have something new on which to comment. Or, are we too petty to give her a chance?

Mandy
Royal Forums Administrator
I don't understand exactly what you are saying since you are posting as the Royal Forums Administrator. Is there now a time period restriction on what we can post concerning information about Charlene? You mentioned, "We're talking about a time when she was totally dedicated to swimming. "But, according to Charlene's own statements starting with her debut at the Turin Olympic in and until her latest Park Avenue interview published in Aug 2007, she stated that her only interest is swimming and making the Beiijing Olympics.

You have made yourself perfectly clear (with terms such as catty and petty) about how you feel about certain posters discussing Charlene's own statements that may not show her in the most positive light. But, can you please clarify what you mean by moving on. Are we not to discuss anything that she said in the year 2001 or less? Or any other time period starting today? When you say move on and see what she can achieve, I believe much of the discussion about Charlne has been in reference to her behavior since she has been with Prince Albert. So, what other achievements are you talking about? When you say give her a chance, what exactly does that mean as far as participation in this forum? Is participation in this forum now limited to certain viewpoints? Or posters not to discuss anything about her that's not positive? I don't remember this being the guideline for any other women (two in particular) that posters have discussed very passionately. I have never seen such instructions like this before concerning an individual in this forum. So, can you please be more explicit (spell it out) in what your warnings really mean in terms of participating in this forum?
  #764  
Old 09-26-2007, 11:16 PM
smdouglas's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Paso Robles, United States
Posts: 248
Forum discussions get hotter and calmer. That is the nature of the beast.

I, for one, enjoy the discussions (except for the occasional non-duplication of someone's viewpoint and an occasional mis-stated "fact").

I take it from the viewpoint that these are someone else's lives we are talking about. We can't possibly know all of the facts or understand all of the factors in a particular situation, but the discussion of them (knowing these limitations) is good.

Thanks to each of you for your contributions!
  #765  
Old 09-27-2007, 02:23 AM
Mandy's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: , United States
Posts: 6,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyAdia View Post
I don't understand exactly what you are saying since you are posting as the Royal Forums Administrator. Is there now a time period restriction on what we can post concerning information about Charlene? You mentioned, "We're talking about a time when she was totally dedicated to swimming. "But, according to Charlene's own statements starting with her debut at the Turin Olympic in and until her latest Park Avenue interview published in Aug 2007, she stated that her only interest is swimming and making the Beiijing Olympics.

You have made yourself perfectly clear (with terms such as catty and petty) about how you feel about certain posters discussing Charlene's own statements that may not show her in the most positive light. But, can you please clarify what you mean by moving on. Are we not to discuss anything that she said in the year 2001 or less? Or any other time period starting today? When you say move on and see what she can achieve, I believe much of the discussion about Charlne has been in reference to her behavior since she has been with Prince Albert. So, what other achievements are you talking about? When you say give her a chance, what exactly does that mean as far as participation in this forum? Is participation in this forum now limited to certain viewpoints? Or posters not to discuss anything about her that's not positive? I don't remember this being the guideline for any other women (two in particular) that posters have discussed very passionately. I have never seen such instructions like this before concerning an individual in this forum. So, can you please be more explicit (spell it out) in what your warnings really mean in terms of participating in this forum?
I see no reason to keep harping on the same issues and unearthing old articles just to express the same opinions ad nauseam. I think most members, by now, understand that you believe Charlene is leading a life of debauchery. So unless, there is new and recent evidence to support your claim(s), I suggest you cease and desist with this agenda.

Even if you feel offended by Charlene's behaviour, we expect your criticism of Charlene to stop well short of insult.

Remember, we keep this thread open for the sole purpose of keeping this nonsense out of the other threads.

Mandy
  #766  
Old 09-27-2007, 07:01 AM
MyAdia's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mandy View Post
I see no reason to keep harping on the same issues and unearthing old articles just to express the same opinions ad nauseam. I think most members, by now, understand that you believe Charlene is leading a life of debauchery. So unless, there is new and recent evidence to support your claim(s), I suggest you cease and desist with this agenda.

Even if you feel offended by Charlene's behaviour, we expect your criticism of Charlene to stop well short of insult.

Remember, we keep this thread open for the sole purpose of keeping this nonsense out of the other threads.

Mandy
I get your message and I will leave. But, I do not think that Charlene is leading a life of debauchery. I think there are better role models of women to idolize than this woman. I think Charlene Wittstock is exactly whom she says she is and whom she has shown herself to be. The article I presented was an interview of Charlene that obviously included her own statements, motivations, and attitude (as well as most of the information that I presented). I think that her attitude displayed in her 2001 interview and her actions (giving her tell all interview) after her first date with Prince Albert in 2001 (ironically the same year) depicts the same person who just two weeks ago had no problem thinking it's perfectly acceptable for her to boisterously root for any team that she desired (as she let the Prime Minister of France who had the gall to confront her) regardless of the sensibilities of her hosts.

I became interested in Monaco after hearing about Prince Albert's son and his relationship with the mother. It was clear to me (and a lot of other people that posted on this board) that because of his misplaced and poor judgment, a woman with an agenda took advantage of him. Subsequently, this woman's follow-up actions, behavior, and attitude revealed her true nature. Less than one year later, revelations occurred again shown that this man had shown prior poor judgment in not discerning the true agenda of certain types of women.

Then this "blond bombshell," "Grace Kelly look a like" as she is deemed in the press comes onto the scene, and many people are gleeful because she represents the image that many much prefer to what they have seen graced across the tabloid front pages, which made Monaco and Prince Albert a laughing stock in many countries. I actually was a reader for six months before I ever posted anything about the first woman on this board. And I actually, didn't post anything about Charlene until reading and observing things until two months after she came onto the scene. I didn't come here with an agenda as you so think. I just happen to see in Charlene the same type of woman as the others and the same type of behavior. I never spread lies or hurled blind insults. I presented things that revealed Charlene's actions, behavior, and attitude presently (and as her 2001 interview indicated seems to be fixed).

Actually, I am not directly offended by Charlene's behavior. She is who she is and I have no interaction with her what so ever. I am offended by people that judge people solely by their looks. If Charlene looked like for instance the other two women that I mentioned above, I doubt that people who hurl insults at me (openly as this post or not so openly), would have had a difficult time understanding her actions and statements for what they exactly are. So, if Charlene didn't have the image and looks that people find so agreeable, when reading her 2001 first date tell-all interview they would have found her actions totally indiscreet (especially compared to other royal girlfriends). Or they would have probably believed Charlene when she says that she is selfish and self-absorbed as she did in her 2001 SuperSwimmer interview. Or they would have thought that a woman who attended an Olympic Opening Ceremony with an IOC member and a Sovereign Prince head of state and behaved as Charlene did in the stadium AND made statements about Turin being a great place for lovers - was at the least indiscreet. Or they would have thought that if that same woman then followed up her debut at Turin with a sit down interview just two weeks later, perhaps she was a self-promoter since the only justification for the interview was her relationship with Prince Albert. Further, I believe if Charlene looked like the two women that I discussed above and thus when she said that she only cared about swimming and her grades in school were not important, perhaps people would have found such a sentiment narrow-minded for the global environment that we live in today. Or they would have questioned Charlene's true motives and goals (or questioned her integrity) if she stated that she only cared about making SA's Olympic team, but her competition participation didn't correspond with any of her past actions to make an Olympic team (and succeeded) prior to her involvement with Prince Albert.

I could go further and discuss other items such as Charlene's recent Park Avenue photo shoot and compare it to another such woman's photo shoot in People magazine, but I have concluded that similar behavior does not matter because Charlene is so fortunate to have pleasing looks that people are willing to dismiss and overlook and any of her non-flattering and inconsistent statements. So, I am offended by people who find such behavior acceptable (or who dismisses or ignore such behavior) because the person who perpetrates it is attractive.

I believe that Prince Albert has a destiny to fulfill (besides his birth right). He entered his reign under worldwide humiliating media coverage. Less than a year later he endured it again, but not as much because the media soon latch onto the image of Charlene and so did Prince Albert. Obviously, the image of her was not enough because we still saw him with other women (I know some people dismiss the other women people because they cannot reconcile the fact that a man will cheat on someone who looks like Charlene or that she will accept it). However, now I think that Prince Albert is starting to realize that he really does have a higher purpose in his life and the humiliation he endured in the media is slowly residing. Slowly, I think he is realizing that an image is just that - an opinion or concept that is held by the public - and he is realizing that he should seek something real and authentic and not just and image of the type of woman that he wants.

Unlike many others, I always thought that this man hasn't married yet not because he doesn't believe in the institution of marriage - I think that he hasn't married because he actually believes in it very much. I never believed that Prince Albert waited almost 50 years of his life to enter in a marriage with someone like Charlene. So, as has confidence increases and he starts realizing that he the emperor really doesn't have on any clothes, the swimmer who doesn't really swim will be heading on to further conquests.

So, just because I or people like myself are suppressed from revealing or discussing information about Ms. Wittstock's behavior outside of the idolization of her pictures, does not make her behavior any less manipulative, selfish, or self-absorbed. In time, the truth will reveal itself.
  #767  
Old 09-27-2007, 12:58 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
See, this is one thing I don't understand about the points of view of our regular posters about Charlene. If I'm understanding you right, you're saying pretty much that after a couple of rather sordid episodes of affairs with a black woman and a hispanic woman, which resulted in the embarrassing revelations of illegitimate children that were almost certainly conceived deliberately on the part of the mothers, Albert is trying to rehabilitate his image (or provide a talking point and a diversion) by hooking up with, basically, a good-looking blonde bimbo. And that the racism implied by that action is offensive.

So why is Charlene the one who's on the receiving end of all the criticism and bashing? This whole business strikes me as a case of Albert thumbing his nose at the rest of the world and using her to do it. Women throughout history have been attracted to rich and powerful men - anthropologists would have you believe there are sound evolutionary reasons for it - so she isn't doing anything especially out of the ordinary in using her looks and her high profile as an Olympic athlete to get and hold Albert's attention. He's the one who's acting like a petulant child over this issue, and she's the one getting most of the blame for it.

In its way, this need to blame Charlene for Albert's situation is almost as bad a stereotype as what's been going on with Albert's own image-rescuing efforts, although it's a sexist one rather than a racist one.
  #768  
Old 09-27-2007, 01:11 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: , Netherlands
Posts: 252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mandy View Post
I see no reason to keep harping on the same issues and unearthing old articles just to express the same opinions ad nauseam.
The same thing has to be quoted over and over again because over and over again posters are posting these "fantasies" about Charlene that are disproven by Charlene's own words and actions. Most of Charlene's interviews are from 2006 and 2007, so hardly old. And while none of us can prove or disprove Charlene's training activities, fact is that she's barely competing (something that is very easy to prove).
I suspect I might be more sick of the repetition of the same old, same old than you. In fact, I've given up correcting posts/posters exactly because of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mandy View Post
Even if you feel offended by Charlene's behaviour, we expect your criticism of Charlene to stop well short of insult.
I don't remember I've ever caught MyAdia insulting Charlene. I find her posts well written, balanced, well researched and based on facts, quotes and figures.

But, let's turn this around: I would like to ask anyone for any reasons why Charlene would make a good princess of Monaco and/or a good wife for Albert. And no, being blond, having blue eyes and being young enough to have children isn't good enough. Tell me Charlene's good qualities. With evidence. Post it here, PM me, e-mail me, send me a homing pigeon, whatever. I so want to be convinced. Seriously. Here's your chance to convert me to your point of view. The ones who think Charlene isn't suited are challenged to substantiate and prove that, I'd love to hear the same from the ones who think Charlene is perfect for the job.
Thank you very much in advance for your reactions, I'll be reading them with interest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mandy View Post
Remember, we keep this thread open for the sole purpose of keeping this nonsense out of the other threads.
Thank you, much appriciated.
__________________
Free Albert !
  #769  
Old 09-27-2007, 01:22 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
But, let's turn this around: I would like to ask anyone for any reasons why Charlene would make a good princess of Monaco and/or a good wife for Albert. And no, being blond, having blue eyes and being young enough to have children isn't good enough. Tell me Charlene's good qualities. With evidence. Post it here, PM me, e-mail me, send me a homing pigeon, whatever. I so want to be convinced. Seriously. Here's your chance to convert me to your point of view.
Since Albert doesn't seem to be looking at her as a possible princess of Monaco if his statements about marriage are any clue, I think that being asked to provide evidence of her suitability for the role is something of a red herring. For the moment he seems to be using her as - pretty much - an accessory, and she's doing OK in that role.

Quote:
Quote:

Remember, we keep this thread open for the sole purpose of keeping this nonsense out of the other threads.
Thank you, much appriciated.
You're welcome.
  #770  
Old 09-27-2007, 02:08 PM
Mandy's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: , United States
Posts: 6,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghislaine View Post
The same thing has to be quoted over and over again because over and over again posters are posting these "fantasies" about Charlene that are disproven by Charlene's own words and actions. Most of Charlene's interviews are from 2006 and 2007, so hardly old. And while none of us can prove or disprove Charlene's training activities, fact is that she's barely competing (something that is very easy to prove).
I suspect I might be more sick of the repetition of the same old, same old than you. In fact, I've given up correcting posts/posters exactly because of that.
Ghislaine, this is not directed only at you.

It's not that simple. With the constant nagging to disprove the so called "fantasies", we have managed to drive away the younger posters and the newly-interested posters. Driving someone away from this board because s/he has a favourable opinion of Charlene or has a difficult time posting his/ her opinion amid the pushier members somehow doesn't seem fair to me.

We have to somehow change the negative atmosphere so that everyone, new and old, can post here without fear of being verbally attacked for his/her views of Charlene and Albert. For that to happen, we need the cooperation of each and every member. That's all I'm asking.
  #771  
Old 09-27-2007, 02:23 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 1,025
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mandy View Post
Ghislaine, this is not directed only at you.

It's not that simple. With the constant nagging to disprove the so called "fantasies", we have managed to drive away the younger posters and the newly-interested posters. Driving someone away from this board because s/he has a favourable opinion of Charlene or has a difficult time posting his/ her opinion amid the pushier members somehow doesn't seem fair to me.

We have to somehow change the negative atmosphere so that everyone, new and old, can post here without fear of being verbally attacked for his/her views of Charlene and Albert. For that to happen, we need the cooperation of each and every member. That's all I'm asking.
On another forum where the "charlene" fans are in the minority, we have adopted a more fun approach. When they voice their opinions we kid with them and tell them they may well be right in the end. So far we have not chased them away and they keep posting. There must be a way to refer back to things from the past so that we don't keep repeating them. It seems like it goes in cycles. I just think some people take it more seriously than others. I know on your other threads about other royals things get heated but I don't see it getting quite so nasty or I just missed those posts. Perhapsvwe can adopt a bit of a sense of humor it might help? Just a thought.
  #772  
Old 09-27-2007, 03:45 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
I think part of why it's going in cycles is that this relationship isn't moving forward. It's static and ambiguous, and until the South African Olympic swimming team is announced, they can keep on with the story that she's really training. Once actual developments occur, things might improve. Until then, people seem to be being motivated by boredom with the situation and frustration at being given all these contradictory "explanations" about what's actually going on, if anything.

Humour is a useful tool as long as it isn't just a thin veneer over aggression or sarcasm.

Some of the stuff about Princess Mary of Denmark and (from time to time) some of the stuff about Queen Rania can get fairly unpleasant, to say nothing about the Diana-Camilla wars in the British forum, but the situations themselves are different from this because we're dealing with royal wives, not this semi-detached sort of thing.
  #773  
Old 09-27-2007, 04:44 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: blablabla, France
Posts: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by hibou View Post
On another forum where the "charlene" fans are in the minority, we have adopted a more fun approach. When they voice their opinions we kid with them and tell them they may well be right in the end. So far we have not chased them away and they keep posting. There must be a way to refer back to things from the past so that we don't keep repeating them. It seems like it goes in cycles. I just think some people take it more seriously than others. I know on your other threads about other royals things get heated but I don't see it getting quite so nasty or I just missed those posts. Perhapsvwe can adopt a bit of a sense of humor it might help? Just a thought.
Great hibou, censorship is too bad. One of our Monaco.freeforum members asked charlene's friends to post us.
... When posters have fun they stay or post a lot. Elspeth, you said we have to wait news about Olympic SA team... I can't wait !
I enjoy your "semi-detached sort of thing" I write elsewhere she's NOTHING.
  #774  
Old 09-27-2007, 05:46 PM
Glistening Seas's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: london , United Kingdom
Posts: 1,056
Smile Glistening Seas

people have mentioned before that PA said he refused to be "railroaded" into marriage by the press and anyone and he was right. tabloids seem to want to push him into marriage, understandably because when PA does get married tabloids will make money and looooots of it. however, they will make even "more' money when a disaster of a divorce hits as a result of being rushed. how many years was Prince Ranier in office when he got married does anyone know. It's best to think that when PA does find "the one" it will happen and no amount of pushing should be required to get him into imho
__________________
Glistening Seas-United Kingdom
  #775  
Old 09-27-2007, 06:56 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 6,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by hibou View Post
On another forum where the "charlene" fans are in the minority, we have adopted a more fun approach. When they voice their opinions we kid with them and tell them they may well be right in the end. So far we have not chased them away and they keep posting. There must be a way to refer back to things from the past so that we don't keep repeating them. It seems like it goes in cycles. I just think some people take it more seriously than others. I know on your other threads about other royals things get heated but I don't see it getting quite so nasty or I just missed those posts. Perhapsvwe can adopt a bit of a sense of humor it might help? Just a thought.

hibou I love your suggestion about lightening it up with some humor, it's much needed. I just can't figure out how to do it without getting drawn into a nasty debate. When I found these Forums I was THRILLED because I love gossiping about Royalty and Aristos(I think they lead lives that are so much more interesting and substantial than most of the Hollywood types in the limelight) That's why I was dismayed with what I found when I came here.
I was just caught off guard because I didn't really see any balance or humor.

And let's be honest...there is quite a lot to laugh about regarding some of these noble families, Monaco is at the top of my list!
  #776  
Old 09-27-2007, 10:46 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,020
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
See, this is one thing I don't understand about the points of view of our regular posters about Charlene. If I'm understanding you right, you're saying pretty much that after a couple of rather sordid episodes of affairs with a black woman and a hispanic woman, which resulted in the embarrassing revelations of illegitimate children that were almost certainly conceived deliberately on the part of the mothers, Albert is trying to rehabilitate his image (or provide a talking point and a diversion) by hooking up with, basically, a good-looking blonde bimbo. And that the racism implied by that action is offensive.

So why is Charlene the one who's on the receiving end of all the criticism and bashing? This whole business strikes me as a case of Albert thumbing his nose at the rest of the world and using her to do it. Women throughout history have been attracted to rich and powerful men - anthropologists would have you believe there are sound evolutionary reasons for it - so she isn't doing anything especially out of the ordinary in using her looks and her high profile as an Olympic athlete to get and hold Albert's attention. He's the one who's acting like a petulant child over this issue, and she's the one getting most of the blame for it.

In its way, this need to blame Charlene for Albert's situation is almost as bad a stereotype as what's been going on with Albert's own image-rescuing efforts, although it's a sexist one rather than a racist one.
Excellent and well articulated points Elspeth!

It is certainly the case that Albert lives in a rarified world where he is quite literally at the center of his own universe.

Wow.

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 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?
My question would be for Albert about then why, with all of his connections, could he not find a suitable mentor for her? Certainly there are highly qualified persons who can train her to behave and clean up the way she interacts with dignitaries. They managed to get her some decent clothes and a haircut, and yes, she has cleaned up nicely. So, why after all this time no training in social graces? Has she even bothered to learn any French at all? One does not need to be super important nor royal to take on these things. It's just a matter of wanting to be developed as polite and interesting hostess as possible for guests, I would think -- rather than just being competitive and having a determination to win -- a little more refined with shift away from the mere physical aspect of things


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).
Sorry, but I just don't see Charlene heading/hosting/speaking in a conference on anything like microfinance or participating in any conferences where there is some kind of even semi-heavy political discourse. What credibility would she have in such an arena? I can't even see her doing things like speaking for elementary education or awarding scholarships. Not that she cannot ever do it, I just do not see it at the moment.

I think she's Albert's sporting trophy girl (for better or worse) and that's it. I think she may have been invited for Albert to sponsor her for athletic work (like some other athletes) and they turned it into a little affair. Good for her. She can try to soak up some some more culture while she's there. JMO.
  #777  
Old 09-28-2007, 12:58 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: ELKTON, United States
Posts: 368
If Charlene can train herself to speak at forum she do it like Mathilde and Maxima. You do need that kind of background to speak at forum. But who will listen to her she dropout and that bad. I wish she go back to school and get her GED.
  #778  
Old 09-28-2007, 01:24 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: ****, Canada
Posts: 1,512
infinite jest

I have been reading the forums and I would kindly direct forum members to the lines of Hamlet regarding Yorrick when holding his skull because I think hibou's suggestion that we lighten up a lot very appropriate .
Until we have an announcement of betrothal between Pa & Cw ladies and gentlemen this idyll or whatever else anyone may wish to call it is the apotheosis of infinite jest.
  #779  
Old 09-28-2007, 09:40 AM
sandsla's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghislaine View Post
The same thing has to be quoted over and over again because over and over again posters are posting these "fantasies" about Charlene that are disproven by Charlene's own words and actions. Most of Charlene's interviews are from 2006 and 2007, so hardly old. And while none of us can prove or disprove Charlene's training activities, fact is that she's barely competing (something that is very easy to prove).
I suspect I might be more sick of the repetition of the same old, same old than you. In fact, I've given up correcting posts/posters exactly because of that.
I don't remember I've ever caught MyAdia insulting Charlene. I find her posts well written, balanced, well researched and based on facts, quotes and figures.

But, let's turn this around: I would like to ask anyone for any reasons why Charlene would make a good princess of Monaco and/or a good wife for Albert. And no, being blond, having blue eyes and being young enough to have children isn't good enough. Tell me Charlene's good qualities. With evidence. Post it here, PM me, e-mail me, send me a homing pigeon, whatever. I so want to be convinced. Seriously. Here's your chance to convert me to your point of view. The ones who think Charlene isn't suited are challenged to substantiate and prove that, I'd love to hear the same from the ones who think Charlene is perfect for the job.
Thank you very much in advance for your reactions, I'll be reading them with interest.
Thank you, much appriciated.
Well put, Gislaine

I have to jump in here, I think almost everyone's post has been excellent, MyAdia's, very articulate & intellegent posts, as well as everyone else's including Elspeth, who I mostly agree with. The fault is with Albert, for dating someone like Charlene & bringing her where she does not belong.

The reason Charlene get's the attention, one reason is because she has courted it! But we are always being asked to support are ill opinion and know matter how we back it up, we are bitched at (that is exactly the word for it) that we do not have a right to form an opinion, that is what we are told by the few who think a pretty face is a good enough reason for someone to marry someone, especially someone that may be in the position of Head of State's wife. Someone you would think that was dating a 50 year old would not need a mentor or training. I'm sure Camilla handles herself just fine. So, that said, it doesn't let Charlene off the hook for her behavior and that has been what the turn off has been for most from the beginning.

Mandy, I had to jump in here because, you are right the problem is that we have new (young?) people trying to take the informed (old?) people who have been following from the beginning, the ones that have seen all the photo's, read all Charlene's interviews, little quips, & remarks to task. We have seen all the posing, the pictures with Charlene's head in Albert's lap, on her first public outing where he is a member of th IOC, never mind a Head of State. Then her first official public picture where she accompanies the family for the first time, very inappropriatly dressed leaning over the balcony with a cigarette dangling out of her mouth. I'm sorry but we are talking again about te same person's attack on all of the people who don't share her opinion. We are continuosly told by her we have no right to judge or have or form the opinion that most of us hold! You might ask yourself why this is? Why do so many women who do not know each other, from different backgrounds, different ages, share the same opinion of this girl? You seem to want to have equel sides on this board? It's simply that people from all over have came to the same conclusion. I think if we were discussing George Bush we would have one side with far more weight. You cannot try to change what the concensus actually is? I'm sorry but the statement by the poster "you can't tell by one picture"? Pretty much makes the argument, we have some people who have seen a library of photos from one & every event, and one who wants to take everybody to task because she has only seen one picture? (We have all seen the many pictures from that event, with Charlene hanging on Albert) Again, if people are puzzled by our opinions, they should do their own research, it is not our job to catch them up & do the work for them. If they want to participate in the conversation, they should take the time to know what we are actually talking about, before trying to take us to task. The moderators seem to want to defend this immature behaviour? While trying to silence the majority of people that hold another opinion. We have had this same conversation about the same poster who keeps harping on us? There are some very smart accomplished women who post on this board, with a well reasoned opinion and they have a right to it. Unless this board is meant to be a Miss America pagent? The people that have posted above, have not gone in to anything other than Charlene's portrayed behavior? Not petty remarks on her looks, not her lack of formal education only Charlene's words about the lack of importance to it in her life?

There are people much newer to the board that seem to be able to get up to speed. I do not know why we have to continuosly coddle, conjole & make consessions for the same few that cannot be bothered or refuse to inform themselves before they open their mouths. I'm sorry but it seems to be the same poster's that are bent on causing the tirade. I don't think we should have to tolerate them because they want to remain ignorant to the topic. I vote we should move on and ignore and not reply to those posters. I can't help but to point out, that the problem we are having with the posters, is the same we have with Charlene.
  #780  
Old 09-28-2007, 09:48 AM
sandsla's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
See, this is one thing I don't understand about the points of view of our regular posters about Charlene. If I'm understanding you right, you're saying pretty much that after a couple of rather sordid episodes of affairs with a black woman and a hispanic woman, which resulted in the embarrassing revelations of illegitimate children that were almost certainly conceived deliberately on the part of the mothers, Albert is trying to rehabilitate his image (or provide a talking point and a diversion) by hooking up with, basically, a good-looking blonde bimbo. And that the racism implied by that action is offensive.

So why is Charlene the one who's on the receiving end of all the criticism and bashing? This whole business strikes me as a case of Albert thumbing his nose at the rest of the world and using her to do it. Women throughout history have been attracted to rich and powerful men - anthropologists would have you believe there are sound evolutionary reasons for it - so she isn't doing anything especially out of the ordinary in using her looks and her high profile as an Olympic athlete to get and hold Albert's attention. He's the one who's acting like a petulant child over this issue, and she's the one getting most of the blame for it.

In its way, this need to blame Charlene for Albert's situation is almost as bad a stereotype as what's been going on with Albert's own image-rescuing efforts, although it's a sexist one rather than a racist one.
Tamara is hispanic? I might take issue with nothing out of the ordinary? Perhaps more like that hasn't been done before, (but never admired). I would agree with.
__________________

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
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll feminism grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles prince leka princess beatrice fashion princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats 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 queen rania in the un queen silvia 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 time travel women deliver conference


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 09:34 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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