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

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by milla Ca

I can understand that maybe for Diana supporters it´s important to reflect again and again the past and the time of her marriage with Charles.

For me this topic is more and more boring because it doesn´t bring any news or any new reliable source.

No, its me that brought this latest topic up because of some comments I got about Charles from people that hardly follow royalty and I am not a Diana follower.

When friends and colleagues first hear I am interested into royalty, they ask me quite cautiously whether I am one of 'those' people that follow Diana and they seem quite relieved to find out that I am not but I'm always amazed that for non-royal followers, following royalty and following Diana seem to mean the same thing. However they also say that of course, Charles was carrying on with Camilla when he was marrying Diana and if they don't know anything else about Charles, they know that even though they don't care much for either Diana or Charles and they certainly don't know where the statement came from. This belief seems to have entered the public's consciousness without the public ever realizing whether it came from or whether it is really true. If people do know anything else about Charles it is the sure fact as another one of my colleagues told me that the British were going to take the crown away from Charles and give it William. The person I spoke to thought it ridiculous that people were thinking of taking the crown away from Charles and he seemed very sympathetic to Charles becoming King but he thought it was a done deal that Charles would not acceed the throne.

So for most of the people that don't care about this stuff, there are no camps between Diana followers and Camilla followers. However, some of the ideas that Diana wanted planted in people's heads have made themselves into the general public's consciousness without them realizing where it came from much to the detriment of Charles. .

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by milla Ca

Sorry Kelly, but what you wrote are only speculations without any facts.

All these threads end in an enduring Diana-Charles-Camilla discussion.
And because we all don´t know the truth () we try to built our own pictures.
It´s okay, but than we shouldn´t forget that we most of the time talk about (our) fiction and not about reality.

I can understand that maybe for Diana supporters it´s important to reflect again and again the past and the time of her marriage with Charles.

For me this topic is more and more boring because it doesn´t bring any news or any new reliable source.

What i see ( i hope in reality) is a Prince of Wales happily married with a woman who gives him the suport he needs to do such a great job!

Yes, of course and it's good to see them happy together at last. My post was only reflecting my point of view, not the truth ; like you said, we all have our own vision.

To get back on-topic, my opinion did change about Camilla. When she married Charles, I thought she would have a hard time integrating the RF. Not that she didn't have the guts to face the whole world, but that she would be tired of the protocol stuff like changing 3 times of dress at Balmoral, the state visits, etc. I was very surprised to see that a woman who enjoys so much the country side and nature has managed to live with it and behave like a real HRH. My respects

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

Not that she didn't have the guts to face the whole world, but that she would be tired of the protocol stuff like changing 3 times of dress at Balmoral, the state visits, etc. I was very surprised to see that a woman who enjoys so much the country side and nature has managed to live with it and behave like a real HRH. My respects

Interesting that you say that. But you're right. She has managed to give a good image to the public. But maybe that's because she is now as harassed and photographed as ever, but this time her pictures are not used to the advantage of the media alone but for her "darling husband" and her new family as well. So she does what she necessarily got used to but has now the agreable and positive reward of doing Charles and his family a favour not a misdeed.

I'Ve to say that what Ysbel describes bothers me as well. Because it is repeated over and over again. And finally it reaches each and anybody, even those not interested at all. Yesterday I went to a beauty parlour and my husband was so kind to drive me there and wait for me in the lounge. Being there he flipped through the yellow mags and reported exasperated that he couldn't understand why Charles married the same kind of wacko twice? And I said "What"? Then he told me that he had read that Camilla because of a fight with Charles had tried to commit suicide and that her bodyguard had found and saved her. And he commented (and that was when I first realised he had actually listened to my Royal Rants!): "but that was Diana all over, wasn't it? You told me she had claimed to have done done this and it was all in that book you lately read but that she didn't achieve anything from these tantrums and so why would Camilly behave that way, her being much older and much more street-wise, or so I had claimed!" followed by some mumblings that obvioulsy Charles "was not able (other than him, eg.!) to find a wife who was just a good wife and that was that!" I laughed so hard that probably my new laughing wrinkles managed to kill all effect the treatment had had before I proudly had sailed out of the parlour, but then, okay, that's that.

[lexi4]

Originally Posted by ysbel

No, its me that brought this latest topic up because of some comments I got about Charles from people that hardly follow royalty and I am not a Diana follower.

When friends and colleagues first hear I am interested into royalty, they ask me quite cautiously whether I am one of 'those' people that follow Diana and they seem quite relieved to find out that I am not but I'm always amazed that for non-royal followers, following royalty and following Diana seem to mean the same thing. However they also say that of course, Charles was carrying on with Camilla when he was marrying Diana and if they don't know anything else about Charles, they know that even though they don't care much for either Diana or Charles and they certainly don't know where the statement came from. This belief seems to have entered the public's consciousness without the public ever realizing whether it came from or whether it is really true. If people do know anything else about Charles it is the sure fact as another one of my colleagues told me that the British were going to take the crown away from Charles and give it William. The person I spoke to thought it ridiculous that people were thinking of taking the crown away from Charles and he seemed very sympathetic to Charles becoming King but he thought it was a done deal that Charles would not acceed the throne.

So for most of the people that don't care about this stuff, there are no camps between Diana followers and Camilla followers. However, some of the ideas that Diana wanted planted in people's heads have made themselves into the general public's consciousness without them realizing where it came from much to the detriment of Charles. .

I've noticed that too.
Here's a question. How long was it, after marrying Diana, before Charles started seeing Camilla again?

[ysbel]

Oh Jo, how funny you must have looked going out of the parlor.

But you're right about the tabloids; I mean another question I got was why Camilla was so intent on breaking up William and Kate; I told them, no she wasn't intent on breaking up Will and Kate and didn't understand where people got that from.

The next day I went into the grocery store and saw a tabloid that said Camilla finally succeeds in getting William to dump Kate. If you don't care about the royals then the fact that they are the subject of so much tabloid fare does make you lose respect for them even if you don't believe everything that the tabloids say.

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by ysbel

Oh Jo, how funny you must have looked going out of the parlor.

But you're right about the tabloids; I mean another question I got was why Camilla was so intent on breaking up William and Kate; I told them, no she wasn't intent on breaking up Will and Kate and didn't understand where people got that from.

The next day I went into the grocery store and saw a tabloid that said Camilla finally succeeds in getting William to dump Kate. If you don't care about the royals then the fact that they are the subject of so much tabloid fare does make you lose respect for them even if you don't believe everything that the tabloids say.

Well the victim Diana is no longer here to sell the Anti-Camilla stories so they've found a way around it. I think tabloids are like :"Camilla destroyed Diana, now she tries to break William" and that sort of BS.

[ysbel]

Camilla gets called a romance wrecker and you call Diana the victim, TheTruth? I don't see where Diana was the victim here.

But the term victim you use is another idea that Diana worked to move in the public's consciousness that is so prevalent that people name Diana as the victim even in situations where Diana herself was not victimised.

Your easy and confident labelling of Diana as the victim in a situation where Camilla and not Diana is being victimised is quite troubling.

It is as if for the majority of the public Diana's middle name is Victim and being a victim is such a part of her character that her being a vicitm is brought up all the time regardless whether she was a victim or not.

In shorthand terms, the general public seems to regard her as a victim and they don't look beyond the word victim to the actual situation that was going on.

I think with the public hate campaign that Diana waged against Camilla, Diana was the perpetrator and Camilla was the victim. Diana may have been a victim elsewhere in her life but I fail to see where she was a victim here.

Yet the words Diana and victim invariably go in the same phrase whether people think through the facts or not. And they get brought up in situations where she victimised someone else.

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by ysbel

Camilla gets called a romance wrecker and you call Diana the victim, TheTruth? I don't see where Diana was the victim here.

But the term victim you use is another idea that Diana worked to move in the public's consciousness that is so prevalent that people name Diana as the victim even in situations where Diana herself was not victimised.

Your easy and confident labelling of Diana as the victim in a situation where Camilla and not Diana is being victimised is quite troubling.

It is as if for the majority of the public Diana's middle name is Victim and being a victim is such a part of her character that her being a vicitm is brought up all the time regardless whether she was a victim or not.

In shorthand terms, the general public seems to regard her as a victim and they don't look beyond the word victim to the actual situation that was going on.

I think with the public hate campaign that Diana waged against Camilla, Diana was the perpetrator and Camilla was the victim. Diana may have been a victim elsewhere in her life but I fail to see where she was a victim here.

Yet the words Diana and victim invariably go in the same phrase whether people think through the facts or not. And they get brought up in situations where she victimised someone else.

What I meant by calling Diana a victim, it was in the eyes of people and the tabloids, not in mine . I referred to what tabloids buyers thought. Camilla is the real victim here, no doubt of it.

[ysbel]

Oh Ok, TheTruth. So I see you and I are on the same wavelength.

Sorry I thought you were speaking for yourself.

But this brings us back to the idea in the people's consciousness about these figures.

I mean if when people say the word Diana and the first word that comes to mind is victim and then when people say Camilla and the first word that comes to people's mind is Rottweiler then you can see how devastatingly effective Diana's campaign was.

I wonder if there is a way for Camilla to reclaim the Rottweiler comment and other such damaging comments like 'three in this marriage"

I think it would be incredibly funny to see a picture of Charles and Camilla in bed with a real Rottweiler dog between them and have Camilla turn to Charles and say, "Honey, I don't think this is what your first wife meant by 'There Was Three in this Marriage' and Charles responding 'Oh of course, darling, you are absolutely right, there was more than 3. Hurry off Spot, you're getting hairs on the bed. Goodnight Millie' as he turns out the lights.

What are some other ways that Charles and Camilla can neutralize some of the damage that Diana caused to their public reputations (and no I don't mean abdicate from the throne )

[milla Ca]

Originally Posted by ysbel

I think it was be incredibly funny to see a picture of Charles and Camilla in bed with a real Rottweiler dog between them and have Camilla turn to Charles and say, "Honey, I don't think this is what your first wife meant by 'There Was Three in this Marriage' and Charles responding 'Oh of course, darling, you are absolutely right, there was more than 3. Hurry off Spot, you're getting hairs on the bed. Goodnight Millie' as he turns out the lights.

LOL, thank you for this, ysbel!

[sirhon11234]

I don't see Charles, Diana or Camilla as victims; the true victims of the War of the Waleses is William and Harry and perhaps Camilla's children.

Camilla should have known that if the media found out that she was carrying on an affair with the future king it would be deveastating for her reputation.
Diana did cause some damage for Charles and Camilla's reputation but the rest was caused by themselves the camillagate recordings was quite damaging for them.

[lexi4]

Originally Posted by sirhon11234

I don't see Charles, Diana or Camilla as victims; the true victims of the War of the Waleses is William and Harry and perhaps Camilla's children.

Camilla should have known that if the media found out that she was carrying on an affair with the future king it would be deveastating for her reputation.
Diana did cause some damage for Charles and Camilla's reputation but the rest was caused by themselves the camillagate recordings was quite damaging for them.

Camilla should have known? Shouldn't Charles have known as well?

[sirhon11234]

Originally Posted by lexi4

Camilla should have known? Shouldn't Charles have known as well?

Yes he should have also.

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by sirhon11234

I don't see Charles, Diana or Camilla as victims; the true victims of the War of the Waleses is William and Harry and perhaps Camilla's children.

Camilla should have known that if the media found out that she was carrying on an affair with the future king it would be deveastating for her reputation.
Diana did cause some damage for Charles and Camilla's reputation but the rest was caused by themselves the camillagate recordings was quite damaging for them.

Yes but they didn't sell the tapes to a tabloid, nor did Diana and Gilbey with the Squidgygate. All three were trapped by the press. And I don't know if Camilla was thinking about her reputation when she was comforting Charles who was facing a doomed marriage. That's what friends do in tough situations and Charles was lucky to have her support at that time, I believe.