Prince Charles & Camilla Parker-Bowles: April 9, 2005

[Genevieve]

Originally Posted by Nathalian

I agree...I think that Diana left what she wanted...to blame Charles for everything....In my opinion, she was not a saint, she had affairs, even more than Charles, and put all the blame of she being depressed and unhappy. Of course, i´m not making Charles a saint, he had his big mistakes...but, when a marriage ends, we never look to one side..and people are doing that. Just looking at one side of things....and don´t come with : Diana was too young and unexperienced to get married....she knew where she was going into. I´m not also making Diana a devil.......but, that´s the reality.I agree with Genevieve.

I'm glad to see that someone here sees that the re-marriage of Charles and Camilla is not a grey or white matter. That they shouldn't be allowed to get married, that they shouldn't be allowed some happiness because they were the bad guys who ruined Diana. They weren't. Diana was just as responsible for her life falling apart.

Charles and Camilla are no saints, that's for sure. But neither was Diana. Even in death, the multiple affairs Diana had don't make her an angel in the Charles/Diana/Camilla situation. Everyone involved, with the exception of the children, are responsible for their respective marriages flailing and ultimately ending.

And now Charles and Camilla are married. Good for them. I wish them the best of luck and all the happiness.

[lamass]

you know harry could have been happy at the wedding because his dad said he could go see chelsy after it!
" if you are a good boy, you can go to south africa"

[corazon]

Lady louise attend charles wedding party in windsor castle?
No pictures?

[sara1981]

Originally Posted by corazon

Lady louise attend charles wedding party in windsor castle?
No pictures?

no!

little Lady Louise too young to understand to attend! her parents go!

Sara Boyce

[corazon]

harry was 18 months old (like louise) when ther uncle andrew marry sarah ferguson and he attend to buckingham palace´s party.

[Genevieve]

Originally Posted by corazon

harry was 18 months old (like louise) when ther uncle andrew marry sarah ferguson and he attend to buckingham palace´s party.

Louise was probably left home not because of her age but because Edward and Sophie want to raise her out of the spotlight as much as possible. Charles and Camilla's wedding was a rather public and well documented affair, which would not exactly be conducive to the private life the Wessexes want to give Louise.

You also can't compare Harry and Louise. Harry was the second son of the future King (and at the time) and Queen of Great Britain. Unless he was sick, there would be no reason for him to be kept at home and away from the public eye.

[gaggleofcrazypeople]

Yes, and they also pushed him into the spotlight.

[james]

No human being is faultless, including Diana, but she was in despair over Charles and Camilla's affair. It is totally wrong to imply that she and Charles were both having affairs which neither of them cared about. Diana was devastated by Charles and Camilla's behaviour and her affairs were a result of her unhappiness. Even the immensley vain James Hewitt has always maintained that Diana would not have been interested in him or anyone else if Charles had loved her as she loved him. Many people describe the Charles and Camilla situation as "A 33-year old love affair" which we should all rejoice in now that they are finally married. Well if they had both never married or were widowed I might concur but life is more complicted that that. There was in fact the seemingly "inconvienient" presence of a husband and wife in their fine romance which dosn't seem to have merited much copy since they married.

[Warren]

Originally Posted by james

There was in fact the seemingly "inconvienient" presence of a husband and wife in their fine romance which dosn't seem to have merited much copy since they married.

James, are you suggesting that every mention of Charles and Camilla in the media should be preceded by a history of their previous marriages?

I think everyone is well-aware of the circumstances leading up to last week's wedding.

Some will choose to harbour grudges and resentments, and some will instead accept that not everyone is "perfect", find happiness in themselves and accept it in others, and move on.
.

[susan alicia]

she could have chosen to stay faithfull to charles whether he loved her or not. there must have been a time that she was sleeping with her husband and with her lover and that personally disgusts me.

Originally Posted by james

No human being is faultless, including Diana, but she was in despair over Charles and Camilla's affair. It is totally wrong to imply that she and Charles were both having affairs which neither of them cared about. Diana was devastated by Charles and Camilla's behaviour and her affairs were a result of her unhappiness. Even the immensley vain James Hewitt has always maintained that Diana would not have been interested in him or anyone else if Charles had loved her as she loved him.

[Victoria1999]

Originally Posted by susan alicia

she could have chosen to stay faithfull to charles whether he loved her or not. there must have been a time that she was sleeping with her husband and with her lover and that personally disgusts me.

What about Charles sleeping with his wife and lover at the same time. Is it not disgusting?

[elizahawthorne]

LOL I love this picture ...Harry's facial expressions are so funny:) :p
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...hmentid=123191

-Eliza

[stacy]

Originally Posted by elizahawthorne

LOL I love this picture ...Harry's facial expressions are so funny:) :p
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...hmentid=123191

-Eliza

that's certainly the best picture of Harry and his grandma I've ever seen

[Britters]

James, so what you are saying is that Diana had an excuse to be unfaithful and that makes her part in ruining her own marriage okay? Diana could have put her foot down and ended her marriage to the PRince of Wales long before she did, she could have remained faithful until the marraige was over...it was her choice to hop in the sack with almost any man who appeared to have feelings for her. Diana was unfaithful with multiple other men, not just one. And as others have said before, she knew what she was getting into, marrying into the Royal Family so the constant public pressures and being depressed can't really be used as an argument.

[Genevieve]

Originally Posted by Britters

James, so what you are saying is that Diana had an excuse to be unfaithful and that makes her part in ruining her own marriage okay? Diana could have put her foot down and ended her marriage to the PRince of Wales long before she did, she could have remained faithful until the marraige was over...it was her choice to hop in the sack with almost any man who appeared to have feelings for her. Diana was unfaithful with multiple other men, not just one. And as others have said before, she knew what she was getting into, marrying into the Royal Family so the constant public pressures and being depressed can't really be used as an argument.

I totally agree with you Britters.

There was multiple occasions during which Diana could've done something in the name of her marriage. But she never did because she was just as insecure then as she was at 21 when she married Charles to do anything to change the state of her marriage, of not for herself then for her young sons.

And if Charles and Camilla's adulterous relationship was bothering Diana that much, she sure has a funny way of showing it: to go out and have some affairs of her own! And if she loved Charles as much as she said she did, even if he didn't return the love, then why didn't she remain faithful until the very end?

[james]

We can go round in circles for ever more about who slept with who and why they did it. My original post concerned my opposition to the Charles and Camilla marraige and whilst I do reserve some sympathy for Diana this is not the focal point of my opposition to that marraige. If Charles had never been married before I would still be against his marraige to Camilla because I don't think that their long term adulterous affair makes them fit and proper people to be the head of the Church of England and his wife and King and Queen (sorry, Princess Consort) of the U.K. We may live in a more liberal age but at the end of the day every country wants a Head of State it can respect. The Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky affair is an example of how demoralising it can be for a nation when that isn't the case. President Clinton's "cigar" incident and Charles and Camilla's "filthy phone conversation" (remember, she had a husband at this time and he a wife) are among the most embarrasing episodes in their respective countries histories. I don't respect Prince Charles and Camilla because I don't respect a man who sleeps with another man's wife or a wife (and mother) who consistently betrays her husband. If they wanted to marry he should have done the honourable thing and stepped aside from the Throne but they have been proven to be people who have no honour so it dosn't surprise me that they are determined to press on come what may.

[susan alicia]

james,

the comparision of clinton/lewinsky and charles/camilla are, in my view, totally illogical. the affair of the first mentioned was really tacky, disguting and without love.

Originally Posted by james

We can go round in circles for ever more about who slept with who and why they did it. My original post concerned my opposition to the Charles and Camilla marraige and whilst I do reserve some sympathy for Diana this is not the focal point of my opposition to that marraige. If Charles had never been married before I would still be against his marraige to Camilla because I don't think that their long term adulterous affair makes them fit and proper people to be the head of the Church of England and his wife and King and Queen (sorry, Princess Consort) of the U.K. We may live in a more liberal age but at the end of the day every country wants a Head of State it can respect. The Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky affair is an example of how demoralising it can be for a nation when that isn't the case. President Clinton's "cigar" incident and Charles and Camilla's "filthy phone conversation" (remember, she had a husband at this time and he a wife) are among the most embarrasing episodes in their respective countries histories. I don't respect Prince Charles and Camilla because I don't respect a man who sleeps with another man's wife or a wife (and mother) who consistently betrays her husband. If they wanted to marry he should have done the honourable thing and stepped aside from the Throne but they have been proven to be people who have no honour so it dosn't surprise me that they are determined to press on come what may.

[Warren]

Originally Posted by susan alicia

James, the comparision of Clinton/Lewinsky and Charles/Camilla are, in my view, totally illogical.

Yes. You can hardly equate a "bit on the side" quickie fling with a thirty-year plus (with interruption) long term relationship which has ended in marriage!
.

[Reina]

i agree. It is too bad that others have to focus on one little thing like the comparison b/t the Clinton/Lewinsky and Charles/camilla affairs. They are not getting the big picture. Charles and camilla are not fit to be king and queen b/c they were in an adulterous relationship for 30+ years and he will someday be the head of the church of England and both the King and queen of the United Kingdom. They have shown that they are not right for this.

And I understand that Diana did have affairs, which did not help things. But I think it is also important to note that Charles had affairs too. And now he is marrying his mistress. And possibly he will become king and thus the head of the church of england (which will be a joke if he becomes king). I think this kind of shows that he bears much more repsonsibility. And since he has shown that he is not that responsible in his personal life, why should he be allowed king? let alone head of the Church of England. But I guess some of you don't see the significance of this.

Originally Posted by james

We can go round in circles for ever more about who slept with who and why they did it. My original post concerned my opposition to the Charles and Camilla marraige and whilst I do reserve some sympathy for Diana this is not the focal point of my opposition to that marraige. If Charles had never been married before I would still be against his marraige to Camilla because I don't think that their long term adulterous affair makes them fit and proper people to be the head of the Church of England and his wife and King and Queen (sorry, Princess Consort) of the U.K. We may live in a more liberal age but at the end of the day every country wants a Head of State it can respect. The Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky affair is an example of how demoralising it can be for a nation when that isn't the case. President Clinton's "cigar" incident and Charles and Camilla's "filthy phone conversation" (remember, she had a husband at this time and he a wife) are among the most embarrasing episodes in their respective countries histories. I don't respect Prince Charles and Camilla because I don't respect a man who sleeps with another man's wife or a wife (and mother) who consistently betrays her husband. If they wanted to marry he should have done the honourable thing and stepped aside from the Throne but they have been proven to be people who have no honour so it dosn't surprise me that they are determined to press on come what may.

[Alexandria]

Originally Posted by Reina

And I understand that Diana did have affairs, which did not help things. But I think it is also important to note that Charles had affairs too.

Actually, Charles had one albeit long affair. Diana had several affairs.