Camilla & Charles: How has your opinion changed since the wedding?

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by Al_bina

I am not sure whether King Charles will get more power or influence than Prince Charles.

There's still a difference between a Prince and a King of a ruling country.

[judith14011]

Charles is very much like his reviled Uncle David in the end. Refusing to do his job without "the woman I love" by his side. The comparisons are just amazingy accurate.

[PadThaiPrincess]

It is eerie how much their Prince Charles has in common with The Duke of Windsor when it came to women.

[wbenson]

At least the results are different!

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by PadThaiPrincess

It is eerie how much their Prince Charles has in common with The Duke of Windsor when it came to women.

If you read about the problems that arose when the later George VI. wanted to marry a commoner, even one with the courtesy title of "Lady" and how he insisted on his choice, if you see to what length Elizabeth and Philip went to be able to marry, if you see that Andrew despite their divorce won't give Sarah up, then it seems there's a pattern in the whole family.-

Yesterday I read a book online called "The Court from within" by HRH Maria Eulalia of Spain, Duchess of Montpensier who lived for a time at queen Victoria's court. There the infanta describes how the very intimate and loving family life of the BRF influenced her and the other girls who grew up at that court, including Victoria's granddaughter Alix of Hesse and by Rhine, later the unhappy zaritsa who was murdered by the bolschewiks, but who had managed to have a loving family life before. Quite interesting read.

So I'm not sure that the facade of the BRF, stiff upper lip etc., tells the truth about their behaviour when "entre vous". But then I don't believe in Diana's claims about their coldness, I only believe, as Infanta Eulalia points out as well, that being Royality has its own rules.

And it seems that once the Windsors found the right husbands/wifes, they tend to enjoy married life.

[Elspeth]

Queen Mary's lady in waiting Mabell Airlie wrote in her memoirs that George VI was a man who would be made or marred by his wife, and the same has held true for his grandson. As you say, this sort of single-minded fidelity seems to be quite a Windsor trait (Edward VII notwithstanding...)

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Queen Mary's lady in waiting Mabell Airlie wrote in her memoirs that George VI was a man who would be made or marred by his wife, and the same has held true for his grandson. As you say, this sort of single-minded fidelity seems to be quite a Windsor trait (Edward VII notwithstanding...)

Hm, Edward VII. was in a difficult situation as he was somewhat forced to marry Alexandra while his mother and his children more or less could choose whom to marry. Noone forced Victoria to fall for Albert, but she did and got him while Edward's children seem to have found happiness in their marriage or did not marry at all (like Victoria Alexandra). Especially Maud of Norway was quite known for her love for Haakon and IIRC Louise, duchess of Fife did not stop mourning her husband after he died as early as 1911.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by judith14011

Charles is very much like his reviled Uncle David in the end. Refusing to do his job without "the woman I love" by his side. The comparisons are just amazingy accurate.

Do you think? Charles reportedly said that Camilla was 'non negotiable', not I will not work as the Prince of Wales or refuse to be King, without her.
I don't think the Duke was reviled by the British people, just by certain members of the then government and of course the QM!

I may be old fashioned, but to me, enduring love is something most people strife for, what woman wouldn't want to be 'first and foremost' in her husbands mind?

[MARG]

Originally Posted by judith14011

Charles is very much like his reviled Uncle David in the end. Refusing to do his job without "the woman I love" by his side. The comparisons are just amazingy accurate.

Refusing to do his job? Really? I must have missed that (obviously) very public ultimatum.

The Prince of Wales is and alway has worked very hard. The only difference being that over the years he became more serious, wieghed down and less conspicuosly happy.

Camilla has given us back our Prince! He has re-discovered how to laugh uninhibitedly in public. He is sharing much more of himself with his us and is noticably more relaxed in public. I think that 70% of that is Camilla and the other 30% is finding that the people he has worked so hard for still care about him and respect him.

Charles has found a joy in life that he is readily sharing. He has learnt how to laugh at himself, and to his surprise, found that most people are laughing with him and not at him.

I for one find it wonderful that people can still surprise us, that he can still surprise us. In this dreary old world I say Bring it on!

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Do you think? Charles reportedly said that Camilla was 'non negotiable', not I will not work as the Prince of Wales or refuse to be King, without her.
I don't think the Duke was reviled by the British people, just by certain members of the then government and of course the QM!

I may be old fashioned, but to me, enduring love is something most people strife for, what woman wouldn't want to be 'first and foremost' in her husbands mind?

And in this case, Camilla was very willing to stay in the background and not share the public comforts and privileges of being a Royal wife. So she for years gave up so much for Charles and lived through a sort of public revilment that must have been hard to take when one considers that her children suffered from the situation (as Tom Parker Bowles said in an interview). And still she managed to convince her children that it's the right way to deal with the situation, to keep quiet and take the blows that are dealt your way without ever to speak up. If she was my mother, I'd be incredible proud of her!

I still think if it hadn't been for the missing courage of the Van Cutsem's who sacrificed the dignity of Camilla for the sake of protocoll (only because they caught a Grosvenor as daughter-in-law IMHO), Camilla would still be comfortable as Charles' "secret" wife. But that was a blow no real man could allow his beloved to take and so he faced the public and stood by his lady...

[ysbel]

Well my opinion of Charles has gone up. When I was eighteen or so I thought he was incredibly pompous and stodgy. Now I see that he's a deep thinker and he's deliberate, qualities I admire. He complains a bit and he is not a good speaker but that is all.

I also feel some sympathy for him for what he suffered at the hands of Diana. I know some think he was incredibly cruel to Diana to take up with another woman but if I compare his pulling his love away from Diana to Camilla and Diana's trying to destroy him, Camilla, and the Royal Family in public, I would have to say that Diana's deeds were worse and harder to understand and forgive.

So I think he is severely wounded and some people will rejoice at his pain and hope ferverently for him to die before his mother so he will never be King and others will relate to him and his pain and hope he does well, yet others will not care because they have their own pain to deal with.

But overall I think he has tried to do the right thing, even by Diana, when he found he could not love her; he at least tried to give her respect in her public role as Princess of Wales, a title and position that she cared about very much and one that gave her the stage to get the adoration of the people she so craved. For Diana, I believe that the biggest sin that Charles committed is that he was not able to love her madly and be captivated by her charms like everyone else was and that was the source for her increasing hatred towards him. For that sin, he was guilty as charged but it was not such a terrible sin. When he found he could not love her, he cut his losses and moved to Camilla which she could have done and moved on to her own fulfilling life without Charles' love; she however, decided to focus her energies on destroying Charles and she damn near succeeded. There was no victory in that for her and nothing productive came of it.

I know Diana claimed that Charles brought Camilla into the wedding bed with him, but I rather think that the reason Diana claimed that because she couldn't face the facts that the woman she turned out to be was not the type of woman that Charles could love. I rather think it was easier for her to believe that Charles always loved Camilla and never gave her, Diana, a chance to make him fall in love with her rather than believe that he gave her the chance and Diana failed to make him love her. For the most loved woman in the world to fail to make her husband fall in love with her simply because she was not suited for him was a defeat that I don't think she would even admit to herself much less to her friends and loved ones and especially not the public.

So what does this do with my opinion of Charles? Well Diana never influenced my opinion of Charles because I started watching the royal family before I even heard of Diana and so I had already made up my opinion of them. But I think for people who only started to watch the Royal Family when Diana came on the scene, a lot of people's opinions about Charles came from what Diana told them about herself and her marriage and I think because Diana had an axe to grind, I don't think all that she said was true or can be trusted to provide a true mirror to Charles' character.

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by PadThaiPrincess

It is eerie how much their Prince Charles has in common with The Duke of Windsor when it came to women.

Really? I don't think Charles has that much in common with David unless you count the familial.
Wallis was never hands on like Camilla, or even Diana was. She just made David comfortable. Like a baby. But that's my opinion. Camilla, from what I've seen, enhances Charles and brings out the best in both of them.

[COUNTESS]

Sorry, Ysbel, but his sin of " not loving Diana", is not such a big sin? Actually, I hate the word sin. Let's use the word decency. Charles had a built in lover when he married Diana and he continued that, wanting to live a charade. When you marry someone, you best "love" that someone at that moment. "Whatever love means"" That statement was quite telling. She should have run. I only use, at that moment, because of so many divorces, in general. I don't see Diana as any kind of a saint, but a fool.

My opinion hasn't changed. I see he is happy and has a wife who cares for him. Perhaps, because he cares for her. They should have married from the outset, or he should have remained single. He loved one woman and to that end he lived his life. Selfish to the end.

[BeatrixFan]

I wouldn't call loving someone selfish. I don't think there's anyone alive who can explain love. If there is, they obviously haven't known it.

[normalil]

Countess, I do agree with much of what you say. I think that when Prince Charles married Diana, he thought that he had found someone who could make up for the fact that Camilla, who would always be his best friend, was married and lost to him. (Things were a lot different in those days.) I think that Diana let him down, and that he and Camilla resumed their relationship when things reached rock bottom.
I am happy to see them both appearing so happy. I admire them both for their dignity and devotion to each other.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

Charles had a built in lover when he married Diana and he continued that, wanting to live a charade. .

You keep on repeating this as if it were an absolute irrefutable fact Countess when the simple truth is that we only know that it is what Diana told us. You may believe she told the truth but that doesn't necessarily mean that she DID tell the truth about this.

As I said, I think its more probable that Diana couldn't face the fact that she married a man that couldn't love her and so she convinced herself that he never loved her and always had Camilla. As I think Diana convinced herself that she never had a chance because of Camilla because it was easier to face than the fact that she never had a chance with Charles because she was not the type of woman that he could love.

Is that the truth? Maybe not but I think it is just as likely (or even more likely) than the story that Diana gave was that Charles had a ready-made mistress. Because Diana knew that if she put this idea out in the world, then people like you would use it like a mantra every time Charles' name came up and if enough people like you believed it, then Diana would be successful in destroying her husband regardless of whether her accusation was true or not. How bloody brilliant and how bloody destructive and then if she told a lie, then how bloody wrong!