The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > Current Events Archive

Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #121  
Old 02-04-2005, 05:57 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: , United States
Posts: 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by susan alicia
Elspeth the following is printed today in the dutch newspaper the telegraaf:



vr 4 feb 2005, 19:49

FinanciŽn Charles en Camilla doorgelicht

(rough translation)
this monday the house of commons is going to ask questions to a financial advisor of charles.... to make sure that the expenses of his girlfriend camilla are not being paid by the british taxpayer... because she does not fulfill an official function she should not profit from the cornwall estate. the cornwall estate is meant for charles and his 2 sons and enjoys many fiscal advantages.
the fiscal advantages have cost the british taxpayer the past 10 years about 20 million ponds.
LONDEN - Een commissie van het Britse Lagerhuis hoort maandag een financieel adviseur van kroonprins Charles. De ondervraging is de eerste in het parlementair onderzoek naar de financiŽn van de troonopvolger. De commissie wil zich er onder meer van verzekeren dat Charles' vriendin Camilla Parker Bowles niet wordt onderhouden door de Britse belastingbetaler, meldden Britse media vrijdag. Charles en CamillaFoto: APCamilla Parker-Bowles vervult geen enkele officiŽle functie en mag daarom niet profiteren van de fondsen van Cornwall. De inkomsten van het hertogdom zijn bedoeld voor het levensonderhoud van prins Charles en zijn twee zonen William en Harry en zijn vrijgesteld van allerlei belastingen.

De belastingvoordelen hebben de Britse belastingbetaler de afgelopen tien jaar naar schatting ruim 20 miljoen pond gekost.
This is so hilarious. I'm sure the British taxpayer has paid for just about every royal mistress, lover, good-time girl or boy-toy that has ever been linked to members of the family. I'm sure this inquiry will find "nothing out of order".
__________________

  #122  
Old 02-04-2005, 06:24 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Well, I don't know how much money Charles has from non-government sources, but if most of his income is from the Duchy, then realistically that's what's going to be used to look after his family, including Camilla.

I'm sure that however much he tries to do the right thing, there'll be a lot of people for whom it won't make any difference.
__________________

  #123  
Old 02-04-2005, 06:32 PM
RoseMary's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: , United States
Posts: 150
Post

I believe he makes a lot of money else where. From what I've read he makes more money from non-government bodies. I think I heard it on PBS during a special on the royal family. He could support Camilla without touching any money he gets from the government(taxes).
__________________
If you want something done right, do it yourself.
  #124  
Old 02-04-2005, 06:46 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Do you remember what sort of non-government bodies they were talking about as sources of income for him?
  #125  
Old 02-04-2005, 08:16 PM
GrandDuchess's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Somwhere, Sweden
Posts: 3,407
Shedding some more light on his finances:

From BBC News 30 June 2004:
Property boosts Charles' income

The Prince of Wales' pre-tax income rose by nearly a fifth last year to nearly £12m, a royal report has shown.

The Duchy of Cornwall, which provides Prince Charles' annual income, grew in value by £55m last year - thanks in part to the healthy property market.

Clarence House's first annual review of his work and accounts showed his income was used to meet some personal costs for Camilla Parker Bowles.

The prince also helped to raise around £100m for charity in the year 2003-04.

He met an estimated 10,000 people during his 517 engagements and hosted 9,000 guests at royal residences.

The prince received around 33,000 letters from the public and wrote 2,000 himself, with a further 10,000 written on his behalf.

Personal costs

According to the review, his pre-tax income grew by nearly £2 million to £11.9 million in 2003-04, with the value of his estate increasing by 14%.

The prince's income puts him among the UK's top earners, a London-based financial expert said.

Justin Urquhart Stewart, of Seven Investment Management, said Charles would be "in the top 100 in terms of income".

But he added that "there's not a lot he can do" with his wealth, given that he is not allowed to make money from the sale of the duchy's properties.

The prince's private secretary, Sir Michael Peat, said: "People are entitled to know how the Prince of Wales fulfils his public role."

The report marked the first time that Mrs Parker Bowles had been mentioned in the prince's accounts, with three references to her appearing in the 48-page document.

Sir Michael said her appearance in the review was "not hugely significant".

"Obviously her staff have an office to cope with work that arises because of her connection with the Prince of Wales."

The number of full-time staff employed by the prince increased from 91 to 112, including 73 by the duchy, which spans around 56,000 hectares and is worth more than £463 million.

Created in 1337 by Edward III, the duchy's main purpose has been to provide an income for the heir to the throne.

'Accountability'

Prince Charles, who is the 24th Duke of Cornwall, does not own the duchy's assets but is entitled to its annual net surplus.

Properties from which he receives an income include The Oval cricket ground and Dartmoor Prison.

Grants-in-aid to the prince, for official travel and the maintenance of royal residences, also increased, from £2.7 million to £3.8 million.

The prince voluntarily pays income tax at 40% on his duchy income and, like William and Harry, does not have an allowance from the Civil List.

Charles' tax bill was included in his £4.4 million personal expenditure, and he spent a further £5.9 million on official duties and charitable activities, the figures revealed.

The review divided Charles' duties into three areas: supporting the Queen, working as a charitable entrepreneur and promoting Britain.

It sums up by saying that he seeks "to use his unique position to make a difference for the better".

The BBC's Royal Correspondent Peter Hunt said the prince's aides had stressed the review's "emphasis on accountability".

He added that they were "very keen to focus on the work that he does and not his private life".
__________________
Sofia's Blog (my blog)
  #126  
Old 02-04-2005, 08:19 PM
GrandDuchess's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Somwhere, Sweden
Posts: 3,407
Very interesting about his finances:

From The Observer, 30 January 2005:

The prince of property and his £460m business empire

MPs are to probe the complex financial affairs of the Duchy of Cornwall that let Charles sell his own trees to himself and pocket the cash

Any fan of the royal family driving past the Punchbowl industrial park in Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, is unlikely to think twice about the grey warehouses Yet this drab piece of commercial real estate now has its own blue blood connections.

The large Wickes distribution depot at one corner of Punchbowl may be a far cry from the grand surroundings of Highgrove, the rolling hills of Dartmoor or the 'idyllic' Poundbury village in Dorchester. But like all these chunks of valuable real estate, the Wickes warehouse is now proudly owned by Prince Charles.

An Observer investigation has revealed that the heir to the throne is reaping record returns from property acquisitions channelled through the Duchy of Cornwall, Charles's 700-year-old estate given to him by his mother in 1969 as a 21st birthday present.

Next week the Duchy of Cornwall's finances will for the first time come under independent public scrutiny. On Monday 7 February, the powerful House of Commons Public Accounts Committee will begin calling witnesses as they probe the inner workings of the opaque Duchy accounts. As our analysis shows, MPs on the committee will have plenty to quiz the royal accountants about.

Unlike the Queen, who is paid through the Civil List, Charles gains his money through the duchy. Last year his estate awarded him an income of almost £12 million - a 20 per cent rise on the previous year. An analysis of the duchy's historic accounts reveals that since 1993, when the Prince of Wales was paid £2.9m, he has enjoyed a 300 per cent pay rise. This is equivalent to more than 25 per cent a year during a period when average earnings rose by 5 per cent a year.

In large part, Charles' soaring pay has come from the transformation of the duchy into a huge commercial enterprise. It still owns vast tracts of land, including 70,000 acres in Devon, 18,000 acres in Cornwall, 15,000 acres in Somerset and practically all of the Isles of Scilly. He still also owns landmark properties such as the Oval cricket ground in London.

But Charles has also been collecting office blocks, retail outlets and a string of businesses in a series of astute transactions which belie the commonly held belief that Charles is little more than a do-gooder who talks to plants.

The most important plants to him are those he sells through the Duchy Nursery, along with premium-priced organic biscuits, jams and sausages through the company Duchy Originals. The entire operation is now valued at £463m, although financial analysts believe this is a substantial underestimate. Yet despite its lucrative business dealings, the duchy, because of its royal heritage, is exempt from corporation tax and capital gains tax.

A quick analysis of its operations reveals this tax break to have been hugely valuable to the Prince and is estimated to have saved him a tax bill of some £20m over the past decade. But it is this tax exemption that threatens to be the latest embarrassment for the royal family. At the top of the agenda for the Commons inquiry is whether this multi-million-pound tax break gives value for money.

Snaking through the Tamar valley in north Cornwall are the 130-acre Greenscombe Woods owned by the Duchy of Cornwall for centuries. Its canopy is not full of traditional oaks; instead, the valley's southern slopes are clothed in tall Douglas firs, Western red cedars and Leyland spruces, grown as part of the duchy's timber business.

But it is not just the trees that make Greenscombe distinct. Its uniqueness derives from a peculiar financial transaction that occurred six years ago when Charles was in need of cash after his expensive divorce settlement.

The Prince of Wales cannot, by law, sell any part of the duchy estate. Yet in a creative accounting ruse that would make many in the City proud, Charles claimed he owned the trees personally, not the duchy. This allowed him to sell thousands of trees growing on duchy land back to the duchy and earn £2.3m in cash. In effect, he sold the trees to himself and pocketed the proceeds.

'This is certainly one transaction we will want to investigate thoroughly,' said Labour MP Alan Williams, who sits on the public accounts committee. 'We need to be confident that Prince Charles is not abusing taxpayers' money in any way.' Duchy officials say that Charles was the driving force for developing the woodland and used his income to maintain the trees. They claim that he would only have benefited from the trees when they were felled and then sold for timber.

Another controversial area that the Commons inquiry is likely to examine is the cost of funding the office of his partner, Camilla Parker Bowles. Last year's duchy accounts revealed for the first time she was an official member of the household. It stated: 'Income from the Duchy of Cornwall is used to meet personal expenditure for the Prince of Wales, Princes William and Harry, and some personal costs of Mrs Parker Bowles.'

It is understood that Charles provides her with two part-time secretaries, a driver and a gardener for her Wiltshire home. The Prince also pays for her bodyguards, travel, jewellery, clothes, an adviser and stabling for her horses. She also now has an office at Clarence House.

One former senior palace official told The Observer that the Duchy of Cornwall is being driven by Charles's need to make more money. 'He has growing sons, a more visible high-profile partner and professional passions that need ever-increasing amounts of money.'

Last summer Sir Michael Peat, Charles's private secretary, published a review that was meant to show that Charles led a simple life. They showed that Charles was a major benefactor to charity and worked hard to fulfil his public duties. But they also revealed his lifestyle is far from frugal.

His jump in salary let him increase the staff from 91 to 113. His 28 personal staff include secretaries, a chef, grooms, valets, gardeners, estate workers and domestic staff. Much of his lifestyle costs are written off against tax. In 2003 it emerged he wanted polo bills listed as a business expense. The review said Charles only owned one car, yet failed to mention he leases a fleet of luxury vehicles. At the time Peat said: 'The Prince of Wales ... is exceptionally hard-working and gives the majority of private money to fund his duties and official work.' The Commons committee will be testing that assertion.
__________________
Sofia's Blog (my blog)
  #127  
Old 02-05-2005, 04:28 AM
susan alicia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: , Netherlands
Posts: 2,529
well it gives us something to talk about, will go and get the saterday telegraph.

(off topic but can some one tell me what broadly speaking is the difference between the observer and the telegraph)
  #128  
Old 02-05-2005, 06:46 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Broadly speaking the Observer (a Sunday paper - the daily equivalent is the Guardian) is probably the most politically left wing of the broadsheet newspapers whereas the Telegraph is the most right-wing and probably the most supportive of the royal family.

The other two broadsheets are the Times, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, a supporter of a republic (at least in Australia and probably also in the UK), and the Independent, which has behaved from its inception (it's the newest of the broadsheets) as though the royal family were irrelevant. Probably if you read about the same thing in the Telegraph and the Guardian/Observer and take an average, you'll be somewhere near the facts of the case since those two papers will put opposite slants on the story.
  #129  
Old 02-05-2005, 08:17 AM
susan alicia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: , Netherlands
Posts: 2,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
Broadly speaking the Observer (a Sunday paper - the daily equivalent is the Guardian) is probably the most politically left wing of the broadsheet newspapers whereas the Telegraph is the most right-wing and probably the most supportive of the royal family.

The other two broadsheets are the Times, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, a supporter of a republic (at least in Australia and probably also in the UK), and the Independent, which has behaved from its inception (it's the newest of the broadsheets) as though the royal family were irrelevant. Probably if you read about the same thing in the Telegraph and the Guardian/Observer and take an average, you'll be somewhere near the facts of the case since those two papers will put opposite slants on the story.
thank you!!
  #130  
Old 02-05-2005, 09:10 AM
tipper's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Napoli, Italy
Posts: 236
Angry

Quote:
Originally Posted by Britters
I would just like to point out that Camilla played no part in the death of Princess Diana and it's quite unfair to assume or imply that she did. Diana's death was a horrible accident.

Furthermore-William and Harry seem to like that their father is truly happy, and seem to have no problem with Camilla. As far as we can know neither does Charles's family (as if Queen Elizabeth II really had a problem with her, there is no way she would allow them to be living together). Charles has trained and been raised with the idea that he is to one day become King. It's his life (It would be like going to college for a degree in such and such and then being told after all those years of study and preperation that you couldn't do your trained job because you married a divorcee). A law states that he can't marry Camilla because her ex is still alive and therefore they are making the best out of a situation. The "people" need to just butt out of that part of his life in my opinion. Why stop a man from being happy, when in his last marriage he so obviously wasn't? It's no one elses business if you ask me.
it's a pity Camilla made Lady Di's life so miserable, well, so did her fiancee', Charles, who got married to a girl of barely 20, knowing all along he would have never even tried to treat her like his wife, she was for him only the suitable woman who could carry his own kids, and of course the 1 who would be the King/ Queen after his death, Diana was just a kind of cow, for him, as soon as she gave birth to 2 sons, he got back to his great love, Camilla, and from that time he always refused to get on having a sex life with his own wife, as he did not need her anymore- an accident ? who knows..... I think only a few ppl really believe it was only an accident.
  #131  
Old 02-05-2005, 09:22 AM
tipper's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Napoli, Italy
Posts: 236
Angry

Quote:
Originally Posted by Britters
I would just like to point out that Camilla played no part in the death of Princess Diana and it's quite unfair to assume or imply that she did. Diana's death was a horrible accident.

Furthermore-William and Harry seem to like that their father is truly happy, and seem to have no problem with Camilla. As far as we can know neither does Charles's family (as if Queen Elizabeth II really had a problem with her, there is no way she would allow them to be living together). Charles has trained and been raised with the idea that he is to one day become King. It's his life (It would be like going to college for a degree in such and such and then being told after all those years of study and preperation that you couldn't do your trained job because you married a divorcee). A law states that he can't marry Camilla because her ex is still alive and therefore they are making the best out of a situation. The "people" need to just butt out of that part of his life in my opinion. Why stop a man from being happy, when in his last marriage he so obviously wasn't? It's no one elses business if you ask me.
true, it's his own business, but does he deserve to be happy ? he did not make Diana happy, that's why he could not be happy in his marriage- he should abdicate, he's not worth of being the future King of UK, no matter how long he has been trained to be King, he never really tried to be worth of being King one day, he has been selfish and only minded his own desires, he never questioned if what he was doing was the best for his country, in my opinion, he should have lead a different life and be an example, 1 worth of the British ppl's respect.
  #132  
Old 02-05-2005, 09:25 AM
tipper's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Napoli, Italy
Posts: 236
Angry

Quote:
Originally Posted by james
Well, Britters, I'm not sure as to what extent you pay for your head of state but here in Britain the taxpayer significantly contributes to the upkeep of The Monarchy so it's not in our interests to, as you put it, "Butt out" of the heir to the throne's affairs. We have a financial right to know what's going on and if you really want to argue morality it can be said that at least the Duke of Windsor gave up the throne for his lady as opposed to our present Prince of Wles who insists on having his cake and eating it.
Angela, I think u're so right, that's what I was trying to express, he has had his cake and he wants to eat it, no matter how many ppl, including his own sons, he is hurting , every single day, by his behaviour -
  #133  
Old 02-05-2005, 09:34 AM
tipper's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Napoli, Italy
Posts: 236
Angry

Quote:
Originally Posted by kinneret5764
I don't blame Camilla for Diana's death. Diana and Charles were completely incompatible from the start and probably should have never been married. Diana said that she knew of Charles' relationship with Camilla even before they were married. I can't understand why she still married him in spite of this.

Camilla contributed to Diana's unhappiness by undermining the fact that Diana was Charles' wife. Camilla however did not force Diana to have mutiple extra-marital affairs, or get into that car with Dodi Fayed.
Diana learnt of Charles' affair during her honeymoon, I remember that he " met" Camilla the day before the wed, they spent the night together, -btw, why would have a beautiful, young woman who felt rejected by her own hubby not have the right to look for happiness in other men than her husband ? she was young, lonely, he was spending all his time with Camilla, what should have she done ? stay at home and cry ? she did in the 1st times, then she felt she had to achieve happiness herself, too-
  #134  
Old 02-05-2005, 09:39 AM
tipper's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Napoli, Italy
Posts: 236
Red face

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubbette
Charles and Constantine are cousins through Prince Philip?
yes, Prince Philip's father was Prince Andrew of Greece, the younger brother of King Paulus, K Costantine's father- if I remember well, and his mum was a Mountbatten, Princess Alice.
  #135  
Old 02-05-2005, 09:47 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: , United States
Posts: 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by tipper
Diana learnt of Charles' affair during her honeymoon, I remember that he " met" Camilla the day before the wed, they spent the night together, -btw, why would have a beautiful, young woman who felt rejected by her own hubby not have the right to look for happiness in other men than her husband ? she was young, lonely, he was spending all his time with Camilla, what should have she done ? stay at home and cry ? she did in the 1st times, then she felt she had to achieve happiness herself, too-
Diana learned of Charles' affair with Camilla way before the wedding day. She learned about it after the tabloids ran a story about a blond leaving Charles' disembarking from the royal train early in the morning in the English coutnryside. Diana was in London at the time of the incident. The press thought it was her. When she read the story and when she met Camilla and observed how close Camilla and Charles were, she figured it out.

I'm not saying Diana should have just stayed home and cried. She should not have given the RF or the tabloids any ammunition to shoot her down with. She could have exercised more discretion over her own life. no one would question her credibility if she never had those multiple affairs, some with married men. She would be alive today if she didn't "lose her head" over Dodi. Her main concern was to get back at Charles. Her main concern should have been to look after William and Harry. If she was around, maybe those boys would not be making the mistakes they are now.
  #136  
Old 02-05-2005, 09:50 AM
tipper's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Napoli, Italy
Posts: 236
Angry

Quote:
Originally Posted by ap3
Up front, let me say that I loved Diana's style, and got into royal-watching because of her.

Having said that, I think all the interviews, books and tapes which have been released since her death, show me Diana was less stable than I thought. It wasn't just a case of she was unhappy and had affairs because Charles was cold to her and was having an affair with Camilla. And that therefore everything was Charles and Camilla's fault.

The most disturbing revelation to me from the tapes with the voice coach Settelen was that (1) she had an affair apparently first, with hew bodyguard Barry Manakee in 1984-85, (2) everyone knew about it, including Charles, and (3) Diana wanted to leave her 2 baby boys and Charles for Manakee!

I also found the revelation that Daina pushed Raine Spencer down the stairs and it gave Diana "great satisfaction" troubling.

I know I should be above listening to stories about people who have passed away. But I found the Settelen tapes interesting not only for their content and the calm sometimes happy way Diana revealed bad acts by herself, but also for the whole atmosphere of the taping session where Settelen is giving her positive reinforcement for doing and saying hurtful things. It makes me wonder if she was surrounded by sycophants who never told her the truth or the consequences of her actions; e.g., no you can't push people down the stairs because they make you mad. I guess the people who told her the truth are the ones who got cut out of her life.
Charles met Camilla in 1970, and they fell in love, from that time on, they were having a stable relationship, but for few periods of time, so, plz, how can u say Di was the 1st to have an affair ?
have u heard that Di's father was so mean to her, even hit her, and ...OMG, what about her late mother ?Better not saying more about that woman as she's dead, now-
  #137  
Old 02-05-2005, 09:57 AM
tipper's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Napoli, Italy
Posts: 236
Question Diana is the Roman name ,Arthemis the Greek one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vicomtesse
This doesn't even make sense.
In classical mythology Diana was not a Roman goddess but a GREEK godess of the hunt who was known to be a fervent hunter as well as someone who was always hunted.
I think you're making this up to prove your point because some other people don't agree with you.

well, that goddess had a Roman name, Diana, and a Greek name, Arthemis- she was worshipped by both Roman ppl and Acient Greek ppl, so she's not Greek notr roman, as of course, she was not a real person, - PS: my HS studies were Classical 1s. so I'm sure of it.
  #138  
Old 02-05-2005, 11:26 AM
sara1981's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North Little Rock, United States
Posts: 3,448
i read those posts,tipper

the late Princess Diana still with Prince Charles when Diana with him all the times since Diana got engagement in 1981 but not with Camilla! but Prince Charles been seem Camilla lots since Wales got marriages in 1981 and Charles went see Camilla after Prince Harry's birth in 1984.

who important wife? not Camilla? because Camilla is not going become Queen of England or become Princess of Wales because many people wanted to reminded of famous Princess Diana what Prince William says Camilla will become step-mother of future King of England to marry his father the Prince of Wales if many people would booed for Camilla!

Sara Boyce
  #139  
Old 02-05-2005, 02:33 PM
selrahc4's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: , United States
Posts: 760
Quote:
Originally Posted by tipper
yes, Prince Philip's father was Prince Andrew of Greece, the younger brother of King Paulus, K Costantine's father- if I remember well, and his mum was a Mountbatten, Princess Alice.
Prince Philip's father was uncle to King Paul, not brother.
*Technically* Princess Alice was never a Mountbatten, since she married years before the name change took place; her brothers did become Mountbattens though.
  #140  
Old 02-05-2005, 06:20 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by tipper
it's a pity Camilla made Lady Di's life so miserable, well, so did her fiancee', Charles, who got married to a girl of barely 20, knowing all along he would have never even tried to treat her like his wife,
According to his interview with Jonathan Dimbleby, he claimed that he tried very hard to make his marriage work early on. Now, I know that's what he was going to say whether he really believed it or not, but he did sound as though he wanted a stable and happy home life like the Queen Mother had provided for her children and grandchildren. Since Diana was jealous of Camilla from the very beginning - whether with cause or not - that happy home life was going to take some hard work, and it seems that neither of them were prepared to do that hard work; instead, both of them unfortunately became consumed by their own needs and saw each other as a means to that end only.


Quote:
she was for him only the suitable woman who could carry his own kids, and of course the 1 who would be the King/ Queen after his death, Diana was just a kind of cow, for him, as soon as she gave birth to 2 sons, he got back to his great love, Camilla, and from that time he always refused to get on having a sex life with his own wife, as he did not need her anymore- an accident ? who knows..... I think only a few ppl really believe it was only an accident.
Well, by the time the two children were born, it sounds as though both of them were fed up with each other. It can't have been easy for Charles to be forever accused of continuing to keep a mistress even if he'd given up seeing her after his engagement, and it must have been hideous for Diana, trying to fit into the life-style of a middle-aged prince who was deeply entrenched in his rut and used to getting his own way. I think quite a lot of people saw through the surface glitter right from the start and wondered what on earth was going to keep the two of them together, and that's before Camilla's influence was even really known about by the public.

I think a lot of people believe Diana's death was an accident; it's just that you don't hear from them nearly as much as from the people who think she was murdered.
__________________

Closed Thread

Tags
camilla, camilla parker-bowles, prince charles, prince of wales


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
Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles News 6: February-April 9, 2005 Alexandria Current Events Archive 183 04-09-2005 08:54 PM
Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles News 4: May-November 2004 Josefine Current Events Archive 188 11-23-2004 08:09 PM
Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles News 3: November 2003-May 2004 Alexandria Current Events Archive 161 05-28-2004 02:11 PM
Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles News 2: July-November 2003 Alexandria Current Events Archive 163 11-21-2003 04:52 PM
Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles News 1: October 2002-October 2003 Lorraine Current Events Archive 134 10-31-2003 10:31 AM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style christening of prince oscar coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria's maternity fashion current events duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece jubilee celebration kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction military monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary and womens rights 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 style 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 03:36 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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