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

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by grevinnan

Considering the moral integrity of many royal males Charles fits right in. The rich and powerful simply have other ideas about morality.

That's not necessarily true. I know poor people who haven't any scruples at all! It depends on the person.

[serenissima]

Originally Posted by Russophile

That's not necessarily true. I know poor people who haven't any scruples at all! It depends on the person.

I am not sure if this thread is the correct one but this lady in Germany suggested that I should put what I was saying re: the Prince of Wales elsewhere that I decided to settle down here.

Anyway, what was I talking about ? I am sure it was to do with the Prince of Wales and his wife and the prince's affair re: his letters to the MPs etc.

Well, the Prince of Wales wrote to those people because he was not so happy with the fact that the fox hunting was going to be banned etc which, to his mind, the rural life of England would be ruined etc. However, the natural fact is that those rural parts which he is on about are sort of places like those picturesque Gloucestershire/Wiltshire sort of places but not anywhere like those former mining communities of North East or some parts of Derbyshire countryside etc where the Countryside Alliance people have very little interest of their own. People in such areas do not feel that the Prince of Wales represents them but those who are the members of the Countryside Alliance sort strongly feel that he represents them, thus he speaks on behalf of the entire countrysides. Like those who benefit from such activities as this fox hunting, the Prince of Wales, too, is a farmer gentleman and his world is terribly limited within that particular circle, that is how I feel.

It is just like in the case of that infamous La Amistad. The US president who was more concerned about his people in the southern states that supported slavery supported the Spanish claim to return those unfortunate Africans to Cuba (so that they can be sold to the plantaions etc). However, the judge who was dealing the case gave a verdict that both the president and the Queen of Spain were in wrong and allowed the freedom of the African captives. I am sure those plantation owners in the southern states must have felt all those in New York, Boston etc didn't really understand the life of southern states where the slavery dependant economy was a part of their life etc and the slavery economy was indeed their rural tradition etc.

So, to many people who are nothing to do with this Countryside Alliance sort of thing, this fox hunting is wrong but the prince likes it that he supports it and wants our government to change its policy etc. If the prince is really allowed to have his say in whatever he believes as a person whose life is financed publically (though some may argue that he and his family are finaced by the income generated from the Duchy of Cornwall etc but that is a tax free asset - this man is exempt from tax for his own income but still wants to say these things that concern his own interests when people who are on state benefit for genuin reasons may be told off as some sort of scavengers etc that they should not be allowed to vote etc) then, he should renounce his status and become a British registered voter.

I admire the Crown because our Crown reigns but not governs and the Prince of Wales is a part of it that if his mother can keep her mouth shut and keep her private thoughts to herself, so should he do the same.

[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']Charles letter row: Should Royals get involved in politics?[/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']Prince Charles' right to take an interest in politics has come under scrutiny, after his letter writing campaign to government ministers sparked a political row. [/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']St James's Palace defended the prince's political stand after he reportedly flooded government offices with letters on a wide range of issues, including political correctness and red tape. [/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']The details of the leaked letters, which appeared in the Daily Mail, came after the prince was criticised over claims that he had written to Prime Minister Tony Blair to relay countryside campaigners' views that they were being treated worse than ethnic minorities or gays. [/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']BBC NEWS[/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']How much does he really know about the subjects he is so opiniated about? And what he does know he only knows from a prince's world. He dosen't actually live in the real world does he? He may think he does. I read with interest the article in the gardening section about Prince Charles and his passion for all things organic.
I did visit Highgrove Farm a few years ago as part of a farming group visit. I am not a farmer but I am interested in all things organic and I do have a Veggie patch, for what that’s worth. Our guide took us around the farm including the field of vegetables and the fields of grain. Being a townie I wouldn’t know my barley from my wheat from my oats but I listened and looked. The farmers looked at the number of pests or lack of them in the fields of whatever it was. They were interested in the success rate and the viability of it. I was probably more interested in seeing if I could spot a Royal.
There was a question time and what I found enlightening was the difference between the farmers and Prince Charles. The balance sheet sets them apart. From what I can recall Highgrove may have been organic, but the actual farm had not had a profit for the last 15 years. And then, it was only after he had lowered his own rent on his own farm could he then show a profit.
Can you imagine LLoyds, Barclays etc entertaining the idea that farmers don’t make a profit for 15 years while they go organic. I don’t think so.
I would like to see another article showing the balance sheet over the last 20 years of how this could have been achieved had he been your average farmer and not the prince.[/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']The Telegraph[/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']Prince Charles has every right to say what he thinks, but just because he says it and gives his opinion does not mean that he is right. It is a pity that if he makes a statment i.e. the Big Mac issue, he could not be debated by ordinary people as to why he feels he should make such a statement. The wrong thing is that when he makes a statement, be it slightly poltical or about any other
controversial subject, it is all over the media and you never actually hear of him conversing with anyone about the subject in an open argument, or interviewed by anyone on the televison about why he has those thoughts.
It is unfortunate that if he makes remarks like an ordinary citizen he is not treated in the same way. I think it is a shame, he obviously would like to join in open debate on so many of his pet subjects but is not allowed to.[/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']For fifty four years the Queen has been a model of propriety as a constitutional monarch, both in the UK and in her Commonwealth realms. For the last thirty years and more, though, the Prince of Wales has behaved as though he were running for office, a trait indicative of a certain disconnect between himself and the office for which heredity has destined him. I must admit, though, that my own appraisal of him is quite jaundiced: among his achievements, on his marriage to his former mistress, is the feat of converting myself, a lifelong royalist, into either a republican sympathiser or one who would no longer publicly raise his voice in support of the Canadian Crown under which I live. As you raise the issue of the Prince's political involvement, permit me to lament his latest cause of offence to such of his future subjects who still profess the Christian Faith: given Camilla's acceptance of expensive jewellery from the Saudi royal family, brutal suppressors and persecutors of the Christian religion, indeed shedders of Christian convert blood in their realm, does the Prince propose to sell these costly items and donate the proceeds to the support of the members of Christ's mystical body harassed and slain by his Saudi buddies? ...From this would-be "Defender of the Faith", Good Lord deliver us![/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif'][/font][FONT='Arial','sans-serif']" If Labour ever ban Foxhunting ,I'll quit Britain and spend the rest of my life ski-ing ".
By my reckoning you should have gone in 2005, so why are you still here?.[/font]

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by serenissima

....... However, the natural fact is that those rural parts which he is on about are sort of places like those picturesque Gloucestershire/Wiltshire sort of places but not anywhere like those former mining communities of North East or some parts of Derbyshire countryside etc where the Countryside Alliance people have very little interest of their own. People in such areas do not feel that the Prince of Wales represents them but those who are the members of the Countryside Alliance sort strongly feel that he represents them, thus he speaks on behalf of the entire countrysides. Like those who benefit from such activities as this fox hunting, the Prince of Wales, too, is a farmer gentleman and his world is terribly limited within that particular circle, that is how I feel.

1. Fox Hunting was and is rife in Derbyshire, The Duke of Devonshire is an ardent supporter. There are very many people in the North who hunt and not all live in the countryside. Hunts In The North East Of England
There are many people who are born and bred country folk, who are totally opposed to Fox Hunting as there are many who live in towns and cities who support it.

........If the prince is really allowed to have his say in whatever he believes as a person whose life is financed publically (though some may argue that he and his family are finaced by the income generated from the Duchy of Cornwall etc but that is a tax free asset - this man is exempt from tax for his own income but still wants to say these things that concern his own interests when people who are on state benefit for genuin reasons may be told off as some sort of scavengers etc that they should not be allowed to vote etc) then, he should renounce his status and become a British registered voter.

I am puzzled by your comment that certain people on benefits will be unable to vote as I have heard nothing remotely suggesting this, do you have a link to corroborate this statement? Although the benefits system is far from perfect, IMO, I would think it is as rare as Rocking Horse Droppings for a genuine client to be refused benefit, especially as benefit fraudsters have cost the country millions.

Charles does pay Tax on his personal income and of course The Duchy also pays Tax.

[tinkerbell1948]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Do you mean the moral integrity of the 66.6% of couples that get divorced because they are unhappy within their marriage? Being rich and famous seems to have very little to do with it, the difference is that theirs are the divorces, separations, affairs that make the headlines.

Took the words right out of my mouth

[serenissima]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

1. Fox Hunting was and is rife in Derbyshire, The Duke of Devonshire is an ardent supporter. There are very many people in the North who hunt and not all live in the countryside. Hunts In The North East Of England
There are many people who are born and bred country folk, who are totally opposed to Fox Hunting as there are many who live in towns and cities who support it.
I am puzzled by your comment that certain people on benefits will be unable to vote as I have heard nothing remotely suggesting this, do you have a link to corroborate this statement? Although the benefits system is far from perfect, IMO, I would think it is as rare as Rocking Horse Droppings for a genuine client to be refused benefit, especially as benefit fraudsters have cost the country millions.

Charles does pay Tax on his personal income and of course The Duchy also pays Tax.

Well, I know that the Duke of Devonshire is a pro-hunting and his mother used to say something like she would get imprisoned if this fox hunting ban became the law etc. Now the Dowager Duchess seems to be enjoying her retirement in her lovely home not too far from the Chatsworth House. Maybe, she is a bit too old to run around or for getting imprisoned.

However such parts as Chatsworth, Tissington etc in Derbyshire are very well-off communities that are owned by people who support such activities as this fox hunting whereas people who live in such places as Tibshelf, Morton etc are maily working class people whose lives are so remote from the comfort of those who have so many houses to live here and there. Yet, the Prince of Wales does not particularly represent the uncertainty, worries and concerns of those people but those Countryside Alliance sort of people say that the prince represents the interst of people of the countryside etc etc which is not 100% true. I will understand if the prince does raise such problems as increased drug problems etc in such areas as well as those elderly people who are so isolated in such communities as well as those very small holding farmers who are not at all keen on the fox hunting etc but he seems to be interested in the voice of those people who are angry about the fact that they can no longer hunt freely.

Many people whom I come across who are on some froms of the state benefits (not those who claim the benefits willy-nelly) do tell me that they feel as though they are always looked down on by others or even been told that they are scavengers etc. (I have such opportunities to meet such people from time to time.) I know this in fact that some of those people with whom my husband and I mix through our social network etc at times talk about people who are on benefits in this way as if they are all bogus etc etc. Even one of Anglican priests whom I know said to me something like that - I was so shocked as you can imagine.

I do admire our monarchy and truly hope that no republican ideology such as that of Tony Benn sort will take over this country nor the BNP sorts who seem to manipulate people who are so poor. So, when I see the Prince of Wales who is not that popular anyway makes this sort of noise, I do feel so let down, worry and become sad.

[serenissima]

Well, it sounds as though since 1993 the prince started paying the income tax for his income though it is really a tax free asset etc. However, people are now increasingly becoming curious to know what they pay and what they don't etc etc. Living has become so expensive and some people even comitted suiside after the 9/11 etc. It is natural to think how they are managing to be so well off etc, (well apart from the Queen going to the Claridge's etc within her official capacity etc.)

Oh, I am sure you understand that I wasn't talking about the Duchy Originals. I do buy the products of the Duchy Originals mainly from the Waitrose because, apart from their biscuits, ham and sausages are lovely the profit will go to a good cause as much as the OXFAM's profit goes into good causes etc etc. We quite often use the Duchy Original items as well as the Fortnum's hampers for the raffle prizes etc for some other charities we organise, too.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by serenissima

However such parts as Chatsworth, Tissington etc in Derbyshire are very well-off communities that are owned by people who support such activities as this fox hunting whereas people who live in such places as Tibshelf, Morton etc are maily working class people whose lives are so remote from the comfort of those who have so many houses to live here and there. Yet, the Prince of Wales does not particularly represent the uncertainty, worries and concerns of those people but those Countryside Alliance sort of people say that the prince represents the interst of people of the countryside etc etc which is not 100% true

Not every village or town has it's own hunt but many from these villages are members of hunts elsewhere. I know quite a few people from Sheffield, Buxton, and surrounding areas who are members of a hunt. Quite a few members of the hunts are from working class background, it might help you to read the blurb from The Countryside Alliance where they state this. Personally I am 100% behind the ban. The only thing the CA truly concerns itself with is hunting, whether it is Fox Hunting, Hare Coursing (definitely a working mans 'sport'), Shooting, Fishing, certainly not the day to day concerns of ordinary people, whereas Charles concerns himself with helping disadvantaged youth, farming communities and a variety in between. He personally donated funds to the flood hit regions.

Originally Posted by serenissima

Well, it sounds as though since 1993 the prince started paying the income tax for his income though it is really a tax free asset etc. However, people are now increasingly becoming curious to know what they pay and what they don't etc etc. Living has become so expensive and some people even comitted suiside after the 9/11 etc. It is natural to think how they are managing to be so well off etc, (well apart from the Queen going to the Claridge's etc within her official capacity etc.)

It is not a Tax Free Asset as the Duchy pays corporate tax, employment tax, VAT etc. Charles pays tax on all his income. Charles discloses, in full his accounts every year.

[the1mcgraws]

Originally Posted by reen

I like Camilla a bit more now that I see how happy Charles is. He's a lot more centered, for lack of a better word. She looks more confident. They seem happy together, and that's a good thing. I don't like the circumstances that they found themselves in, but I don't feel I can judge them for what happened in their lives, as I'm not them.

I have to agree that Charles seems more content. They do seem happy together. I have a hard time though not with their beginning but there middle for lack of a better term. Charles is supposed to at some point be the head of the Anglican church and its unseemly to me that a man who cheated on his spouse is going to be the head. He's supposed to set an example and that's what bothers me.

As for Camilla, she seems like a nice enough person. I just hope they stick to the idea of Princess Consort.

[scooter]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

Warren, you're right. And at least they don't call her that spiteful "mistress" anymore.

Here's what I dont understand....She WAS his mistress for many, many,many years. ..why is it, to refer to her in those days is offensive? I mean, if s/he didnt mind doing it, why should they mind it being referred to that way? Do you object to 'former-mistress'? Why do you consider the truth to be 'spiteful'? Look, they are married now, but is it really necessary to pretend that the past, especially so extensively chronicled, does not exist? The truth is the truth. By whitewashing the past, credibility in the present is lost.

[MARG]

Originally Posted by the1mcgraws

I Charles is supposed to at some point be the head of the Anglican church and its unseemly to me that a man who cheated on his spouse is going to be the head. He's supposed to set an example and that's what bothers me.

Men who have done a lot worse have been the head of the Anglican church, and like Charles, they too were merely mortal men who stumble. The basic tenets of our faith (denomination - Anglican), demands that we learn forgiveness, which is often hard personally, but this is not personal, it is vicarious living. Charles is next in line to be head of the Anglican church, not to being canonised as a Saint!

Whatever a person's sins, they are between him/her and God. Nowhere in the Anglican church are we taught to judge and demand public obesience from those whom we deem to be "sinners".

I wonder if we are any less moral than our forefathers? Is it not just that every public stumble is flashed instantly around the world and we can invest ourselves in the lives of others instead of ourselves. The spec in another's eye rather than the log in our own? Or how about "Judge not lest ye be Judged"!

Charles an Camilla are now husband and wife, more than that, they are a happy couple. Is it not time that we, like them, get over ourselves and move on?

I smile whenever I see them on the screen. They look at each other with love and are often filmed laughing and enjoying life. In short, they seem to complete each other. My Crown Prince is now seen to be a happy man and that makes me glad. As C.S. Lewis wrote, faith and morality together with joy, "is the serious business of Heaven."

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by the1mcgraws

Charles is supposed to at some point be the head of the Anglican church and its unseemly to me that a man who cheated on his spouse is going to be the head.

It's very seemly to me. Have you ever looked at a history of the church? Charles could have chopped Diana's head off and he'd still be in form. Of course, Mohammed Al Fayed would have us believing he did.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by wbenson

It's very seemly to me. Have you ever looked at a history of the church?

Or at the history of the monarchy.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by scooter

Here's what I dont understand....She WAS his mistress for many, many,many years. ..why is it, to refer to her in those days is offensive? I mean, if s/he didnt mind doing it, why should they mind it being referred to that way? Do you object to 'former-mistress'? Why do you consider the truth to be 'spiteful'? Look, they are married now, but is it really necessary to pretend that the past, especially so extensively chronicled, does not exist? The truth is the truth. By whitewashing the past, credibility in the present is lost.

As you say. it's no problem to state that in 2004 Camilla Parker Bowles was Charles' mistress. It is spiteful, though, to say, as they do on other forums, that Charles and his mistress spend a holiday in the Caribbean, conveniently forgetting that Charles married her as for those Diana-addictives Charles can never be rightfully married to anyone else but Diana. And I'm glad this usage of the word has ended in the media at least.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by the1mcgraws

Charles is supposed to at some point be the head of the Anglican church and its unseemly to me that a man who cheated on his spouse is going to be the head. He's supposed to set an example and that's what bothers me.

Does the Anglican Church also teach, 'thou shalt not kill', which as head of the armed forces HM does (not literally) on a regular basis and she is head of the church, is she not?

The teachings that many seem to forget is not only forgiveness but 'let him who is without sin cast the first stone'!

Many on this forum, or so it seems, state that they have nothing against Camilla but don't want her to become Queen. Surely if they don't want her to become Queen, they have something against her.

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

It's no problem to state that in 2004 Camilla Parker Bowles was Charles' mistress. It is spiteful, though, to say, as they do on other forums, that Charles and his mistress spend a holiday in the Caribbean, conveniently forgetting that Charles married her as for those Diana-addictives Charles can never be rightfully married to anyone else but Diana. And I'm glad this usage of the word has ended in the media at least.

I wonder why it is considered OK to refer to Camilla as Charles mistress, but nobody refers to Diana as Mannakees mistress, or Gilbeys mistress or Hoares, or Hewitts, or ............