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

[kimebear]

True. I read the one today about how Camilla was "lazy" and skipping functions on their current trip. When you read between the lines all I could really see them proving was (a) its warm in the islands, (b) a 60 year old woman can get tired and (c) it takes a woman longer to get ready for a formal event than it does a man.

Real geniuses they are at the DM!

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

The sad part is that we even discuss this today. She is dead, he is happy, so what's the difference?

The difference is that the monarchy isn't as stable today as it used to be. He may be happy personally, but Diana thought she could manipulate the press skillfully enough to attack Charles without damaging the monarchy, and she couldn't. That might not mean as much to you as the personal side of things, but it means a great deal to a lot of British, Australian, Canadian, and other people who live with this monarchy.

[BeatrixFan]

Isn't it as stable? I'd say it is. The hysteria passed, we're back to normal. Or as normal as the British can get.

[ysbel]

Well I thought kimebear brought up a good point when she said she felt sympathy for Diana as a wife but she felt disgusted at what was being done to the institution. It is conceivable that Charles and Camilla could make themselves very sympathetic to the public but by the very same actions convince the public that they are not right for the throne.

Actually I think Diana somewhat realized this even as she did the Panorama interview. She actually said she would never be Queen of this country. It was as if she knew that despite making a sympathetic portrayal of herself as a person, doing the Panorama interview would kill her ability to represent Britain as a nation as their Queen because Queens just don't do those types of interviews.

So Charles and Camilla must walk a very thin line; they need to make themselves as people more sympathetic to the general public but they can't do it in such a way that would make people think they are unsuitable to represent Great Britain as the country's monarchs.

[kimebear]

That's exactly it, ysbel. There are probably a fair number of people who favor Diana's memory right now because Camilla has not made enough of a positive personal impact on them. She could well manage that with a steady-as-she-goes approach. Unfortunately, I don't think last years memorial service fiasco helped matters any. Not really well thought out or executed by the advisors IMHO.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Isn't it as stable? I'd say it is. The hysteria passed, we're back to normal. Or as normal as the British can get.

No, I don't think it is. When you saw how easily the Mail managed to tap into a reservoir of anti-Charles and anti-Camilla feeling and turn it into a deluge at the time of the Diana memorial concert, I don't think it bodes well for the future of the monarchy. Especially when people in Australia are saying that they'll wait with the republic till the end of this reign but they don't want Charles.

When you see TV snippets of Camilla doing her royal rounds, she seems to come across as very warm, natural, and basically nice. It's sort of a Duchess of Windsor effect - people expect her to be some sort of monster because that's all they've learned about her in their reading, and they're surprised when they meet her to find that she isn't. In that case, the royal advisors should be trying to give Camilla more public exposure, and even if she doesn't like it, she should be getting out more among the people and giving speeches every so often.

[cde]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Isn't it as stable? I'd say it is. The hysteria passed, we're back to normal. Or as normal as the British can get.

IMO I agree with Elspeth. Compare a pre-Diana and a pre Rupert Murdoch press Monarchy with today's, I'll grant you the times were different, but the difference is noticeable. Diana and the Murdoch press changed how people viewed the Royals and unfortunately that damage can't be undone.

[BeatrixFan]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

No, I don't think it is. When you saw how easily the Mail managed to tap into a reservoir of anti-Charles and anti-Camilla feeling and turn it into a deluge at the time of the Diana memorial concert, I don't think it bodes well for the future of the monarchy. Especially when people in Australia are saying that they'll wait with the republic till the end of this reign but they don't want Charles.

When you see TV snippets of Camilla doing her royal rounds, she seems to come across as very warm, natural, and basically nice. It's sort of a Duchess of Windsor effect - people expect her to be some sort of monster because that's all they've learned about her in their reading, and they're surprised when they meet her to find that she isn't. In that case, the royal advisors should be trying to give Camilla more public exposure, and even if she doesn't like it, she should be getting out more among the people and giving speeches every so often.

But the Daily Mail is a comic. It isn't reflective of the British public or we'd be a fascist dictatorship by now.

[Elspeth]

It's reflective enough that Camilla had to back down from going to that service because of the depth of public feeling it managed to generate. Don't underestimate the power of the popular press to influence the populace.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by lexi4

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

Depends on what you call "seeing again". Due to Diana's discomfort with his old circle of friends, he seem to have cut most of them out of his life for a while, including the Parker Bowleses. But at a later point, when his marriage really hit the rocks, he turned back to them for comfort. Probably including Camilla. That was after Harry's birth when already rumours were out that Diana looked for comfort elsewhere, too. It seems that at one point after Harry's birth, Charles and Diana started having each their own circle of friends and all else followed from that, IMHO. It stated like that in both the Dimbleby-book (with Charles' cooperation) and the Morton-book (Diana's side) so I guess that's what really happened.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by ysbel

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 )

Ignore them and show the people two people in love doingt heir duty together for the people they care for and feel responisble for. And let historians deal with their image in the afterlife.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

It's reflective enough that Camilla had to back down from going to that service because of the depth of public feeling it managed to generate. Don't underestimate the power of the popular press to influence the populace.

I believe the way the media writes about Charles and Camilla will change the moment he becomes king. The media dares to make fun of a pronce and heir, they won't do that to His Majesty the King and his wedded wife, be she known as Princess Consort or Queen then. I don't even think it is in reality such a personal thing, it's more that like in Soap Operas fixed position must be filled and that the Royals are sort of audition material to be written into the position they have the most potential. OKay, the soap opera's storybook changed when Diana came on the scene - she was casted as the wonderful next queen at first (like Alexandra or May before her) - beautiful and untouchable, then she was slandered a bit for her money spending habits, ok, but still she stayed a girl right out of a Mills & Boon-novel till the Morton-book came out and she herself had rewritten the storyline of the part: The Heir and his wife. But none-the-less the storyline of The Matriarch/Patriarch does a good job runs sucessfully and runs and runs, no matter what the storylines of second son ("The Nuisance and his much too common wife"), the daughter ("She would have made a great man, but, alas, she's a girl") and the third son (THe Incapable Bore, but has a nice wife he loves, at least that!") plus the other minor roles, ähmmm, minor Royal relatives... It's the Forsyth-Saga all over with as much of Upstairs, Downstairs thrown into the mix.

But once "The Heir" becomes "The Patriarch" of the soap opera, his characterization will change immediately and his wife will no longer be the witch of the play, but "The Supporter at the Heart of the Family". I bet it'll happen that way.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

Ignore them and show the people two people in love doingt heir duty together for the people they care for and feel responisble for. And let historians deal with their image in the afterlife.

I hate to say it, Jo but as much as I'd like to believe you, ignoring them is precisely what Charles did when Diana first began to wield her devastating hate campaign and as kimebear so wisely noted, their silence made them appear as the aggressors. Just ignoring your enemies in this situation gives them a wide berth to paint whatever picture they want of you and you are left appearing like the fools or the ogres that your enemies paint you as being.

I'm not convinced that Charles and Camilla just showing the world how much they love each other is going to change anything. People already see how much Charles and Camilla love each other and the fact that they should have been together, but it doesn't make a difference to them. COUNTESS sees their love, knows that they were always meant to be together but this simple fact rather makes her more compassionate to them actually hardens her heart against them and makes it easier for her to cast off names like witch and ogre to describe them. I suspect that a lot of people are like COUNTESS and they aren't impressed by the fact that Charles and Camilla are truly in love.

The fact that Charles really loves Camilla probably makes them despise him even more because it makes it clearer that he could not love Diana.

[Skydragon]

We should all thank Fayed, by making his allegations and demanding a full, if prolonged inquest, some of Diana's affairs were confirmed to the general public and that will help change peoples perception of Diana the victim. Some of those that dismissed her affairs and put all the blame on Camilla have been able to see how manipulative she was and how she treated her friends. I even heard one staunch Diana supporter saying 'if she treated Charles like that, I'm surprised he stayed with her so long'.

Meanwhile the younger ones, who now have children at school, can see how devastating the Morton book would have been to William and Harry, bad enough when mummy & daddy separate, but to write about it for the whole world to read, is abhorant. How could she have done that to the children she said she loved.

Camilla on the other hand has been seen to try to protect her children and that does earn her points with many people.

The only way Camilla can change some people's opinions, would be to do a Diana and start telling tales, projecting the 'I'm a victim' to the likes of Kay or she can just do as she is doing, continue to retain a regal and dignified silence. Lets not forget also, that Diana was not popular with everyone in the UK and putting it bluntly, it doesn't really matter what those in the US think of our future Queen Consort.

[ysbel]

Well al Fayed succeeded in hurting Diana's reputation with the masses but I think that Diana's reputation as a victim couldn't hold for long for the majority of the public who didn't care about these things. I mean when she cultivated the types of friends that she did, James Hewitt, Simone, Paul Burrell, the al Fayed's and they continue to show their true character through their words and actions, it becomes much harder for the disinterested person to remain sympathetic to Diana who would consort and become friends with such sleazy characters. Its far easier for someone to cast her off as a crazy and a sort of Glenn Close in every man's worst nightmare the same way that COUNTESS cast off Charles as the ogre and Camilla as the witch.

But I don't think that trashing Diana in the minds of the general public is really going to mean that Charles and Camilla appear sympathetic by comparison. I think that most people's natural reaction is to throw their hands up and say the whole lot of them are screwed up and close the door on Diana, Charles, Camilla, the Queen, Andrew, Prince Philip, William, Harry, etc. It is possible to think both that Diana was a manipulative conniving psychotic nitwit and still think of Charles as the loser and the ogre and that Camilla was the ugly evil stepmother.

On a last note, I think that while non-British opinions don't matter as much as British opinions, for a future head of state and his wife they do matter somewhat since the monarch and his consort undertake some responsibilities of representing their country abroad.

I think the question boils down to how comfortable people are with Charles and Camilla representing Great Britain and the Commonwealth? Will they be seen as a detriment or an asset? This question can be answered by both Brits and non-Brits.