Charles and Camilla - The Early Years (1970s)

[Moonmaiden23]

Would you two please turn down the heat? It's possible to address what other people say without having to get personal about it.

Thank you.

Elspeth, I am sorry. I don't believe I am the one who has gotten personal here. I am only trying to figure out the rules...when is a quote or source a lie, when can we believe it, etc.

I am not a fan of C&C but I am also not...uninformed enough to accept that there was only one villain in this very sordid and sad debacle.

 

[Rebafan81]

Thank you Elspeth for your answer

It was Wallis she hated, not David. Even though David was the one who was besotted, Wallis seemed to be the focus of a disproportionate amount of the blame. You should be able to find some more information in this thread:

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/duke-duchess-windsor-10245.html

 

[Skydragon]

Would you two please turn down the heat? It's possible to address what other people say without having to get personal about it.

Thank you.

My apologies Elspeth, I for one accept that I am 50% to blame.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

According to the Dimbleby book (p. 205), in a letter to Charles, which is now in the Mountbatten Archive, he said, "I believe, in a case like yours, a man should sow his wild oats and have as many affairs as he can before settling down. But for a wife he should choose a suitable and sweet-charactered girl before she meets anyone else she might fall for."

Given that he was trying to promote his granddaughter Amanda as the suitable and sweet-charactered girl in question, it's possible that he would have considered any other suitable and sweet-charactered girl to be highly unsuitable. But Camilla didn't fit the bill of "before she meets anyone else she might fall for," by the sound of things.

Yes, very true. Thank you for reminding me of this letter. It does put context into it. Yes, indeed, Camilla was a very jolly and popular young person by all accounts, and probably her infatuation with APB, even in the early part of the first half of the 70s, was widely understood in the polo crowds in which they moved. That was a very clever, concise answer to my many questions.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

It's very easy to for those of us who were not the principals to sit back and say "oh I would have done this or that" if I had been her.

Good point. Nay, a very important point. I know sometimes I am quick to judge Diana because I am so baffled by her irrationality. Yet I am now appropriately humbled. I will also add that I would not have traded places with her for all the world, and oh my, if I had been in her shoes (though the shoes themselves must have been nice to wear sometimes) I am likely to have carried out things much worse. I always say I would be the worst royal ever.

 

[Skydragon]

.....I am only trying to figure out the rules...when is a quote or source a lie, when can we believe it, etc.

I am not a fan of C&C but I am also not...uninformed enough to accept that there was only one villain in this very sordid and sad debacle.

Everyone is entitled to believe what they want, some of us prefer to use personal knowledge, experience and judgment rather than rely on the views of someone trying to sell a book.

As already discussed, the reason I (and I can only speak for myself) ask for the full quote, as written or the source is because 9 times out of 10, when you read the article for yourself, you find that it is based on unnamed sources, rumour and gossip or has been misinterpreted by the other person. Repeat rumour and gossip enough and people forget that it has no basis in fact.

I don't believe there were any villains in this sad tale and I don't believe myself to be uninformed, but as I have said I don't have to rely solely on what I have read in a few books.

 

[Mirkwood Princess]

Royal wedding rules?

Why was Charles not allowed to marry Camilla before Diana? What was the impediment?

 

[Count]

Because Camilla Shand at that time was married with Andrew Parker Bowles.

 

[Elspeth]

Since there seems to be some confusion about the question of quoting sources, the British moderators are preparing some guidelines which will eventually show up as a sticky in the British forum.

For the moment, the short version is as follows.

1. While it's acceptable to say "I read somewhere that....," you shouldn't be surprised or offended if other posters don't take what you say at face value. With the best will in the world, people do misunderstand or misremember, and some sources are more reliable than others.

2. If you're basing an opinion or statement on something you read somewhere, and someone asks for the exact quote, you should try to provide it or say that you're unable to (in which case someone else might be able to help out). I know people read things in library books or in magazines that they don't keep, but if it's possible to provide the name of the book and preferably the page number(s), along with the exact quote of the relevant information, that does at least give the conversation a factual basis. Please don't feel that your honesty is being questioned if someone asks for details about your statement that "I read this somewhere." We're just trying to get hold of the facts of the matter as a basis for the discussion.

3. For the purposes of the discussions in these threads, verifiable published information in reputable sources is more valuable than claims of insider knowledge, either by newspaper reporters ("a close friend of Prince X told me...") or by posters ("I can't tell you how I know, but they aren't telling the truth in that book").

If anyone has questions or comments about this policy on quoting sources, which seems to be giving a few of our posters serious heartburn, please PM me or Warren. That'll be helpful in our attempts to prepare the sticky we're working on. Please don't respond here, because I don't want this digression to derail the thread.

So - back to our regularly scheduled discussion...

 

[Duchess]

...Given that he was trying to promote his granddaughter Amanda as the suitable and sweet-charactered girl in question, it's possible that he would have considered any other suitable and sweet-charactered girl to be highly unsuitable...

i've read about mountbatten pushing for a marriage between his granddaughter and charles a number of times over the years and was always under the impression that mountbatten wouldn't have considered any other sweet-charactered girl suitable...he wanted it to be her. perhaps after he realized it wasn't going to happen THEN he considered other girls suitable.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

Everyone is entitled to believe what they want, some of us prefer to use personal knowledge, experience and judgment rather than rely on the views of someone trying to sell a book.

As already discussed, the reason I (and I can only speak for myself) ask for the full quote, as written or the source is because 9 times out of 10, when you read the article for yourself, you find that it is based on unnamed sources, rumour and gossip or has been misinterpreted by the other person. Repeat rumour and gossip enough and people forget that it has no basis in fact.

I don't believe there were any villains in this sad tale and I don't believe myself to be uninformed, but as I have said I don't have to rely solely on what I have read in a few books.

Exactly so as I agree. To put it even more simply, for anyone who may have remaining doubts or questions, take for example the LETTER FROM MOUNTBATTEN TO CHarles, cited in Dimbleby, which Elspeth kindly brought to my attention before. This letter is the PRIMARY SOURCE. Dimbleby only cited this primary source. Another example is Andrew Morton's Diana: Her True Story. We now know that Morton quoted Diana directly, so many of his quotes can be called primary sources, as they came from the horse's mouth. But as Sky points out, there are too many newspaper articles where the cited primary source is "unnamed friend of the prince" or something like that. I think it is acceptable to use almost any kind of info. as long as you specify where it comes from, even if you think the source is questionable, just say "this came from a tabloid, so and so, with unidentified source," so at least one can know it. Then everyone reading the forums can judge for themselves if it's worth believing, or half-believing, or whatever.

 

[Mirkwood Princess]

I read in wikipedia that she married Andrew only after the Prince was not allowed to marry her.... if this truly was the case, why?

 

[Elspeth]

Since this topic is being discussed in another thread in this forum

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f44/c-c-love-story-true-17276.html

I'm closing this thread so we don't have the same conversation going on in two places.

 

[Duchess]

just because a source wishes to remain anonymous doesn't mean that what they're saying isn't reliable or accurate. the only way to be sure that anything we read/hear is if it come straight from one of the royals and since that's the only way then we'd have nothing to discuss and no forum.

 

[Skydragon]

Everyone is entitled to believe what they want, some of us prefer to use personal knowledge, experience and judgment rather than rely on the views of someone trying to sell a book.

by posters ("I can't tell you how I know, but they aren't telling the truth in that book").

Elspeth, I was claiming that I have personal knowledge (much as MARG has also spoken about) of balls of the type being discussed and base my opinion on the experience of such balls.

 

[Menarue]

I wonder if any of you have read the book "Shadows of a Princess" written by a Mr. Jephson who was, for many years, the Princess of Wales´s private secretary and knew her extremely well. He didn´t have to quote anyone as he was there. If you really want to know more about the Princess and her character I suggest you read this book. If I remember rightly her butler was not mentioned even once..

 

[Elspeth]

Yes, I've read that book, and found it quite interesting. I think, like most people writing about Diana who were actually involved with her in some way, he's written the book at least partly to make himself look good, but even so, what he says does seem to tally with similar things reported by other people.

 

[Elspeth]

Elspeth, I was claiming that I have personal knowledge (much as MARG has also spoken about) of balls of the type being discussed and base my opinion on the experience of such balls.

Yes, I understand that (especially the comments you were making about the older generation and the younger generation).

However, there are a couple of issues here. First is that, as stated in one of the forum FAQs, we don't encourage too much use of personal experience, especially insider knowledge, partly because (and please understand I'm not accusing you of anything here but simply making a general statement, which was the original reason for this rule, which I think has been in place for long than you've been a TRF member) we have no real way of knowing that people really do have the insider knowledge they claim to have. We've seen cases all over the forum where someone will come along and try to stop a conversation dead with a comment along the lines of "I don't care what the newspapers say, I happen to be a friend of Her Highness, and I know she doesn't do that/think that/believe that." It may be true, but it also may not be, and we can't tell one way or the other.

The other thing is that, as Ashley said, written information comes in all flavours from highly reliable to outright fantasy. The particular case here is where Sarah Bradford, who's written a well-researched and well-balanced biography, repeated some information from another book which gives an eyewitness account of something. That's close to being as high-quality a source as we can get. Your experience of these balls might very well be different from this one, but if we're going to dismiss eyewitness accounts described in weighty biographies by highly reputable authors, that doesn't leave a lot.

 

[Skydragon]

Yes, I understand that (especially the comments you were making about the older generation and the younger generation).

However, there are a couple of issues here. First is that, as stated in one of the forum FAQs, we don't encourage too much use of personal experience,

Surely that is what everyone bases their opinion on

especially insider knowledge, partly because (and please understand I'm not accusing you of anything here but simply making a general statement,

Again I don't believe I have laid claim to insider knowledge, I always try to abide by the simple rule that If you are unwilling to provide proof, people think you are an ass if you lay claim to being a 3rd cousin once removed, especially as it would be hard to prove

The other thing is that, as Ashley said, written information comes in all flavours from highly reliable to outright fantasy. The particular case here is where Sarah Bradford, who's written a well-researched and well-balanced biography, repeated some information from another book which gives an eyewitness account of something. That's close to being as high-quality a source as we can get. Your experience of these balls might very well be different from this one, but if we're going to dismiss eyewitness accounts described in weighty biographies by highly reputable authors, that doesn't leave a lot.

I wasn't suggesting every piece of information from such books be dismissed, but do feel that we should be able to question where the author got the original tale. From the original source that you supplied, it seems logical to examine whether this was just a case of a bitter ex girlfriend making waves, after all Anna wasn't the one quoted.

As we have just seen on the Diana thread, just because a source gives their name, it may not be the truth and we should be able to give our reasons as to why we don't believe it and whether it is based on personal experiences or just a feeling.

 

[Elspeth]

Surely that is what everyone bases their opinion on

Not in this context, I wouldn't have thought. I mean, I don't think it's a secret that I have a pretty low opinion of the Queen Mother, but I never met her and I don't think I know anyone who did. That opinion has been based simply on reading books, magazines, and newspapers and watching TV documentaries.

Again I don't believe I have laid claim to insider knowledge, I always try to abide by the simple rule that If you are unwilling to provide proof, people think you are an ass if you lay claim to being a 3rd cousin once removed, especially as it would be hard to prove

Exactly - but as I said, this wasn't directed at you, it was a general statement. This sort of thing is particularly prevalent in the Monaco and Middle Eastern forums, where we've actually had people say that they're friends or relations of this or that royal, they KNOW FOR A FACT that this or that thing is/isn't true, and the discussion about it in the thread must STOP IMMEDIATELY as a result. If we gave in to that sort of thing, we'd be asking to have the brakes put on any conversation involving a disagreement.

I wasn't suggesting every piece of information from such books be dismissed, but do feel that we should be able to question where the author got the original tale. From the original source that you supplied, it seems logical to examine whether this was just a case of a bitter ex girlfriend making waves, after all Anna wasn't the one quoted.

Indeed; however, in this case, we have the weight of Sarah Bradford behind the story as well as Christopher Wilson. This is a bit of a poser, because if the source hadn't been named, it would have been easy to say "oh, it's just the author making it up" or "it's just a waiter at the ball trying to make a bit of money" or something. Presumably there would have been other witnesses as well as Jane Ward, and presumably, if Sarah Bradford had wanted to verify this story before including it in her book, it wouldn't have been impossible to do it. Which suggests to me that it's worth taking seriously even if you don't necessarily believe the details. I hope that if this had been a complete fabrication concocted by a scheming ex-girlfriend, it wouldn't have found its way into the Bradford book even if it did make it into the Wilson book. I might be being too generous to Sarah Bradford, but her book did seem to be trying to strive for a higher standard than that.

As we have just seen on the Diana thread, just because a source gives their name, it may not be the truth and we should be able to give our reasons as to why we don't believe it and whether it is based on personal experiences or just a feeling.

Yes, but this is where things can get a bit awkward. Something like "well, I happen to know her, and she isn't always reliable" is getting perilously close to the Monaco and Middle Eastern examples I quoted above. I mean, if a well-regarded and reputable author believes a story enough to include it in a book or article, especially if the source of the story stands by it enough to be quoted by name, then it does need to be taken seriously enough to not be dismissed without good reason. I agree that there are sometimes good reasons for doing so, but some of the challenges to some of these stories - on both sides of the Charles&Camilla vs Diana issue - do seem to be based on nothing very much more than a desire to place all the blame on the other side.

There's one other factor here too. If a person is going to challenge every last little assertion by one side of the issue but give equivalently suspect assertions on the other side a free pass, then it starts to look more like prejudice and harassment than a genuine desire to get at the truth. We've seen this with certain late unlamented ex-members who couldn't stand the thought that Diana didn't have wings and a halo, and I'm afraid we're beginning to see it again now, only this time applied to Kate Middleton and Camilla as well as Diana. It really makes for an uncomfortable atmosphere, and we've been getting enough complaints recently that we're trying to encourage moderation and fairness on this issue.

 

[Skydragon]

If a person is going to challenge every last little assertion by one side of the issue but give equivalently suspect assertions on the other side a free pass, then it starts to look more like prejudice and harassment than a genuine desire to get at the truth.

Thank you for taking the time to answer my post. Although I brought up the Diana thread, I don't for a moment believe the story in The News of the World, Burrell may have said it but if so, IMO, it was just wishful thinking on his part.

 

[ysbel]

Well, I was not really thinking about the lines of her "waiting for him" until he proposed, but more that, IMO they were NOT in love when they met. They obviously had a good rapport, got along well and became friends/lovers, but not necessarily in love and considering marriage. At least, I don't think SHE was in love with Charles, I always had the impression that she wanted APB, was dating him and wanted to marry him.

I still believe that later, after many years of strong and deep friendship, their relationship became love and then it was impossible for them to get married. Charles would never never never be allowed to marry a divorced woman, so he had to settle down with Diana ou whoever else. But IMO, he was deeply in love with Camilla when he got married and his marriage would not and did not change that. That's why I believe he should have been honest and had had a convenience marriage from the start, telling Diana (or whoever else) everything - she could have said yes or no, but she would know she was not entering a normal marriage. But this a discussion for another thread!

I do have to agree though, that at that time, BP and other royals would make very clear to everybody - including C&C - that Camilla was not "wife material" and maybe that had some influence on Charles, maybe that's why he went away without proposing or talking to her about a future together. But I still believe - IMO - that Camilla was not in love with Charles at that time, she married the man she wanted and loved and only later her feelings changed.

I wish I could know the truth, OMG I am so nosy!

I lost my connection to the internet; a lot has been discussed since then.

I agree with you that its most probable the Charles Camilla relationship started as a friendship. For a man like Charles, I suspect that friends are far more important than lovers. He's had a core group of friends that have pretty much remained friends throughout their adulthood. I think Charles was both fortunate and unfortunate in that he had so many close female friends; fortunate because a lot of men don't have the pleasure of women as friends without being lovers, but unfortunate because having such a number of close female companionship, I imagine Charles' preference would have been never to marry but to enjoy the companionship of his closest friends. Friends don't make demands on a man like lovers do. But that never was going to do for the heir to the throne.

Charles in his interviews before his marriage was not a romantic; he always stressed that his future wife had to understand the job and that he had to choose carefully because people would expect a lot from the woman he married. He did like the contemplative life in the country and chose for his friends those who shared the same interests and inclinations as he did. Diana appeared at first to enjoy that type of life and she grew up in it. It appeared his approach to Diana was the same as his approach to other women who appeared to share his interests. She was a lot younger than his other women friends which made it hard for her to fit in even if she had had the same interests.

I think that Charles knew this and that is why he said, "I feel lucky that she is willing to take me on" because he knew that the woman he married would not only take on him but his lifestyle, his position, and his circle of companions and friends. That's also why he said that he told her before a trip to Australia when they would be separated so that she would have a few weeks to think it over. Diana confidently said she didn't need time to think it over and said yes.

Arranged marriage? I wouldn't go that far but Charles and the Royal Family did consider the position of his wife as a job. From the time I started to watch the British Royal Family, there seemed to be no place for romance in the search for Charles' bride. It seemed so obvious that its amazing that anyone would have taken his liaison as a fairytale romance or anything other than finding the perfect girl for the job. I think the Royal Family and Charles could have been forgiven for expecting Diana's grandmother, the lady-in-waiting to the Queen Mother, and her father, the equerry to the Queen to fill Diana in on what exactly was expected of her rather than having to tell her themselves. According to Bradford, Diana's grandmother had been the lady-in-waiting who first took the young Princess Elizabeth in hand and taught her how to behave as a young Princess in public in the years before she became Queen. This was the whole reason they chose an aristocratic girl from a closely allied noble family so that her family could guide her as needed.

I think for Charles it was not so much one woman he refused to give up but he refused to give up his lifestyle and his circle of friends which forced any woman that married him to succeed in that company of friends or else be shunned by them and by her husband. Any wife of Charles who could not hold her own among that very assertive and confident group of people was bound to be in trouble.

 

[COUNTESS]

Mostly it was boy met girl, boy went to sow his "wild oats, girl married another. Boy and girl got together after a period of time passed and continued their relationship. Boy was "forced" to marry proper girl. He did thus. Boy expected to continue doing whatever he pleased. Boy was a Prince. Wife created havoc when finding boy had another girl. Life became untenable. Boy and wife divorced. Wife is killed. Boy decided if he was a prince he could do anything and demanded to marry girl. It didn't much matter as they had two "pure" heirs. And, boy and girl lived happily ever after.

 

[Elspeth]

Charles in his interviews before his marriage was not a romantic; he always stressed that his future wife had to understand the job and that he had to choose carefully because people would expect a lot from the woman he married. He did like the contemplative life in the country and chose for his friends those who shared the same interests and inclinations as he did. Diana appeared at first to enjoy that type of life and she grew up in it. It appeared his approach to Diana was the same as his approach to other women who appeared to share his interests. She was a lot younger than his other women friends which made it hard for her to fit in even if she had had the same interests.

I think part of the problem was that there were contradictions with respect to Charles. In at least one of the interviews he said that although marrying a princess would be advantageous from the point of view of his wife knowing ahead of time what sort of life to expect, he'd really rather like to marry an English girl (and then there was that "or possibly Welsh" afterthought when he remembered where he was supposed to be Prince of, but whatever). And that's what he ended up doing, which made it appear that he'd put love before practicality (because back then we didn't know about Camilla lurking in the background).

Also, it was fairly well known even before he had his whinge at Dimbleby that he wasn't quite the same sort of hardened he-man as his father but was more sensitive and romantic altogether, which again gave the idea that he was more likely to marry for love.

So he goes and marries this pretty young English girl, and of course the newspapers played up the "love match" business to the hilt, and it seemed to be at least somewhat consistent with the facts. There were still some contradictory messages ("whatever 'in love' means" and so on, to say nothing of the age gap), but it didn't appear at the time to be a marriage of convenience, although I think some of us did have our doubts about how well-matched they were as people.

 

[ysbel]

I think part of the problem was that there were contradictions with respect to Charles. In at least one of the interviews he said that although marrying a princess would be advantageous from the point of view of his wife knowing ahead of time what sort of life to expect, he'd really rather like to marry an English girl (and then there was that "or possibly Welsh" afterthought when he remembered where he was supposed to be Prince of, but whatever). And that's what he ended up doing, which made it appear that he'd put love before practicality (because back then we didn't know about Camilla lurking in the background).

Oh yes, I remember that interview; I mentioned it somewhere in this thread. Yes Charles wanted to marry an English girl. The reverse side of this romanticism was that he seemed to have a deep seated prejudice against foreigners.

Also, it was fairly well known even before he had his whinge at Dimbleby that he wasn't quite the same sort of hardened he-man as his father but was more sensitive and romantic altogether, which again gave the idea that he was more likely to marry for love.

I don't think that just because he wasn't a hardened he-man, that he was bound to be a romantic with women. Actually Philip was a hardened he-man and he was very romantic with women. One of Charles' closest friends and girlfriends Lady Jane Wellesley complained that he was anything but romantic.

So he goes and marries this pretty young English girl, and of course the newspapers played up the "love match" business to the hilt, and it seemed to be at least somewhat consistent with the facts. There were still some contradictory messages ("whatever 'in love' means" and so on, to say nothing of the age gap), but it didn't appear at the time to be a marriage of convenience, although I think some of us did have our doubts about how well-matched they were as people.

To be honest, I don't remember the papers playing up a big romantic story with Charles and Diana. The focus was on Diana and how charming, sweet, adorable, perfect, virginal, young, innocent she was. The only piece of romance I remember being reported between the two of them was when a photographer caught the two heading out of the same house at an ungodly hour of the morning which led to believe they were sleeping together before the engagement. There was never to my mind a big story about their great big love and how it all came to be. Even the story of Anne and Mark Phillips showed more of the love angle before they married.

 

[Elspeth]

I think he gave an interview at some point where he said he fell in love very easily, which also gave the impression that he was a bit of a romantic. As far as I remember, some of these stories about his selfishness during his dates with his girlfriends didn't surface till after the Morton revelations.

I remember quite a bit of stuff in the papers at the time they married about how wonderful that the heir to the throne hadn't had to make a dynastic marriage with some foreign princess or other but had been able to choose his own bride for love and so on. Of course they were somewhat "forgetting" that the woman concerned still had to be "suitable" as far as the royal family and the papers were concerned, but I suppose love matches, real or imagined, make a better story.

 

[ysbel]

I think he gave an interview at some point where he said he fell in love very easily, which also gave the impression that he was a bit of a romantic. As far as I remember, some of these stories about his selfishness during his dates with his girlfriends didn't surface till after the Morton revelations.

Lady Jane's comment was published in a Ladies Home Journal article in 1976 or 1977 when she was still dating Charles. It was one of these magazines that had Princess Caroline on the cover with the headline, Will Grace's daughter be the next Queen of England? and then when you looked inside to read it, it was all about the woman he was really seeing who was Lady Jane at the time. The article was not damning of Charles but indicated that he had his peculiarities that a non-royal woman might take some getting used to. Lady Jane's complaint was that he was incredibly romantic over the phone but one she saw him in person, he would clam up.

Also from various articles, I also remember Charles insisting that his friends and girlfriend call him Sir even in private in deference to his position and that he would shut a friend out if he found that she spoke to the press. Lady Sarah, Diana's sister, received the cold shoulder like this once she spoke to the press but she wasnt' the only one and this was well known in the 70s when Charles was dating. I thought it was rather harsh but the press was a bit fawning at this time and intimated that it was the right of royalty.

I remember quite a bit of stuff in the papers at the time they married about how wonderful that the heir to the throne hadn't had to make a dynastic marriage with some foreign princess or other but had been able to choose his own bride for love and so on. Of course they were somewhat "forgetting" that the woman concerned still had to be "suitable" as far as the royal family and the papers were concerned, but I suppose love matches, real or imagined, make a better story.

I don't remember the papers saying how lucky Charles was to be to marry for love but I do remember the English press going crazy over the fact that Diana was the first English Princess of Wales in 500 years. Even the non-English press seemed to pick up on it. One of the German tabloids had Diana on the cover with the headline, A Girl without a Past from a Family with One. playing up her virginal status and aristocratic background. The English press was positively ecstatic that she was an ENGLISH princess.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Mostly it was boy met girl, boy went to sow his "wild oats, girl married another. Boy and girl got together after a period of time passed and continued their relationship. Boy was "forced" to marry proper girl. He did thus. Boy expected to continue doing whatever he pleased. Boy was a Prince. Wife created havoc when finding boy had another girl. Life became untenable. Boy and wife divorced. Wife is killed. Boy decided if he was a prince he could do anything and demanded to marry girl. It didn't much matter as they had two "pure" heirs. And, boy and girl lived happily ever after.

I am sitting here laughing my head off as I type this because god, have you hit the nail square on the head!! I have rarely read a more concise or accurate(in my own view) summary of the Charles/Camilla/Diana debacle.

Thank you!

 

[jcbcode99]

This thread appears to have gone the way of all other threads about Charles, Camilla, or Diana. Although it gets tiresome to read (and I read each post!) it is truly impossible to discuss one relationship without discussing the other's impact and vice versa.
I happen to believe the Charles and Camilla love story; they are so comfortable with each other that it makes perfect sense. They have a very deep friendship, and love each other as evidenced by the relaxed manner they interact with each other. No tensions here to be photographed and posted on newspapers all around the world. I do not think that C&C love story was just something to justify the wedding or affair--their relationship has been fairly well known for some time.

 

[Roslyn]

I believe Charles & Camilla were great friends and companions, and lovers, from the start and that the groundwork was there for the development of the sort of deep, abiding love and companionship that did develop over the ensuing years and which we see in them now.

I think that when they were first together they were at different stages of their lives and though they did love each other then, Camilla, who was older than Charles, was ready for marriage, but Charles was not and the course that had been set for his life took him away from her and their relationship was not able to develop further at that time. If C&C had been left together a bit longer I think it is likely he would have proposed but marriage wasn't on his horizon at the time he sailed and he didn't ask her to wait.

We can only speculate about what would have happened if Charles had not gone to sea for months without having made his affection and intentions clear first. Of course if he had I think it is very likely that his family, and the courtiers as well, would have done their best to discourage the relationship because of Camilla's "past" and less than noble blood. I think they were probably very fidgety about it at the time but probably thought the threat had disappeared once Camilla married Andrew and they might have been right had Charles married someone more suitable.

But basically I believe the C&C love story.

And I agree it is impossible to discuss this relationship without mentioning Diana, or to discuss C&D without mentioning Camilla. The lives of those three people were inextricably interwoven.