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

[Al_bina]

In my personal opinion, Duchess of Cornwall and the late Princess Diana were the home-wreckers, who made conscious choices to "soil" (I have not found a better word) their marriages by having affairs/liaisons. There is no more or less guilty in this situation.

[Madame Royale]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

I strongly disagree with your label of home wrecker, Charles' marriage to his former wife was going downhill within a week of the ceremony, IMO. Society seems to be a lot more forgiving nowadays, too many are caught up in the 66.6% of marriages that end in divorce and the probable 66.6% of 'survivors' being miserable within their marriages

You say what you have written does not express your 'personal thoughts', then who are you suggesting that you are speaking for? Then why are you so strongly against Camilla becoming Queen to Charles' King. You state you have nothing against her and yet you would be happy to see her denied her rightful title. That you like the title Princess Consort, why, because it is a lesser title?

Even when one makes clear their feelings since joining the forum some two years ago, some still find the need to press a point that a) neither exists or b) suits an agenda to support their own rantionale.

You can strongly disagree with the labeling of Camilla as having been a 'homewrecker' all you like, and I'm glade you do because I strongly disagree with it aswell and totally concur on the points you raised. Which, was the whole point of my post. The post I wrote expressed a sentiment that I've witnessed, but not one I share. Nor have I ever shared.

You seem to highlight extracts which would then, possibly, give you a foundation to ill judge my intent, but it doesn't because you fail to also mention that I noted we live in a society of hypochrites. Which I may like to add, would be a perfect example of those who willingly partake in extra marital affairs yet have shared in the comdemnation of Camilla for exactly the same thing. And not just those who seek company elsewhere, but people in general.

Clearly not sharing your opinion would then mean one cannot think highly of Camilla. Rediculous.

Why am I against her being Queen? It's not that I'm against Camilla being Queen, as some would attempt to imply, rather would like to see her be created a Princess of the UK because, quite simply, I think it better suits her. May it be an unconventional endorsement then so be it. Though on my behalf there is no spiteful intent, at all, and so at some point I'd suggest, and appreciate it, if you didn't imply there is because it makes you seem terribly incoherent too what's already been said, and on more than one occasion. I have justified my reasons (whether or not if some care to take it for what it is) and made clear my feelings towards the Duchess.

I like the title Princess Consort because I like it. Believe it or not, that's it. It has absolutely nothing to do with her bearing a lesser title, though granted that is what it would be. But it is for no ill feeling that I'd support her being created a Princess in her own right. Not that you'd be aware, and not that I'd expect you to be, but I'm not that kind of person. I have acknowledged that my reasons are my own, and would, I'm sure, differ to those of Clarence House and why it was even proposed.

can't the same be said about Charles? After all it takes two to tango and they were both married to other people at the time.

Yes, it can be and I'm not sure why it is that some read only what they wish to read.

"only because of the circumstances in which Camilla, a married woman, sought (or rather, was the one sought out perhaps)"...

How does the above dismiss Charles's participation, if not possible instigation? Quite simply, it does nothing of the sort and well brings him into the equation that was their relationship at the time.

[CaliforniaDreamin]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Divorces have happened within the 'upper crust' (upper class & Aristocracy) long before Charles' time, even before Henry. I find it hard to believe that anyone from Charles' social circle or class, expects anyone to set them an example.

Aristocrats and upper classes are still human.

Aristocrats and upper classes?? Certainly. But among those who are set to be anointed RULERS... sorry. They are human indeed but they have a standard to set for those they lead. And if the cannot live up to that standard, well then...why have them rule at all if they are just any common man on the street??

Speaking of commen men and women, I know several of them who handled their divorces and separtions with much more dignity than Charles, Camilla and Diana.

I was embarrassed for all three of them.

[CaliforniaDreamin]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Unfortunately it wasn't Charles or Camilla that fed the gossip or made accusations. Separations are invariably messy and if the media and buying public had allowed them to 'sort it out', in private, who knows what might have happened. There were suggestions that Princess Alexander and Prince Joachim had other partners, but discretion and dignity allowed for a less public separation and divorce.

Do I blame Diana, Charles or Camilla for the debacle, yes in part, but the biggest contributors were the media and the celebrity obsessed public.

Charles and Camilla did not stay above the fray during that mess. They did not phone up the press like Diana did but they had their henchmen like Nicholas Soames speaking to the media all the time...hinting that Diana was mentally ill and paranoid. One of the British papers even printed a laundry list of details on Diana's personal expenses that reputedly humiliated her so much she was reduced to tears.

And I will never understand why Charles told Jonathan Dimbleby that he had never loved the mother of his own children...for God's sake even if it that was true did he need to say it out loud for his kids to hear? And for Diana to do that stupid Martin Bashir interview as a sort of revenge was just unforgiveable.

I agree with the poster who said they both behaved abominably.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

You say what you have written does not express your'personal thoughts', then who are you suggesting that you are speaking for? Then why are you so strongly against Camilla becoming Queen to Charles' King. You state you have nothing against her and yet you would be happy to see her denied her rightful title. That you like the title Princess Consort, why, because it is a lesser title?

I think Madame_Royale is making it fairly clear that she's talking about the subset of British people who believe that Camilla shouldn't be Queen because of her presence in Charles's life during his marriage. If she herself believes that a unique situation is suited to a unique title, without laying blame for the cause of the CCD debacle, that's a different reason from the rather vindictive one which says that Camilla should be punished for breaking up Charles and Diana's marriage, an opinion held by the above-mentioned subset.

In other words, if I'm reading Madame Royale's posts right, she's talking about different reasons, some of which she agrees with and some of which she doesn't.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Madame Royale

Even when one makes clear their feelings since joining the forum some two years ago, some still find the need to press a point that a) neither exists or b) suits an agenda to support their own rantionale.

You can strongly disagree with the labeling of Camilla as having been a 'homewrecker' all you like, and I'm glade you do because I strongly disagree with it aswell and totally concur on the points you raised. Which, was the whole point of my post. The post I wrote expressed a sentiment that I've witnessed, but not one I share. Nor have I ever shared.

You seem to highlight extracts which would then, possibly, give you a foundation to ill judge my intent, but it doesn't because you fail to also mention that I noted we live in a society of hypochrites. Which I may like to add, would be a perfect example of those who willingly partake in extra marital affairs yet have shared in the comdemnation of Camilla for exactly the same thing. And not just those who seek company elsewhere, but people in general.

Clearly not sharing your opinion would then mean one cannot think highly of Camilla. Rediculous.

Why am I against her being Queen? It's not that I'm against Camilla being Queen, as some would attempt to imply, rather would like to see her be created a Princess of the UK because, quite simply, I think it better suits her. May it be an unconventional endorsement then so be it. Though on my behalf there is no spiteful intent, at all, and so at some point I'd suggest, and appreciate it, if you didn't imply there is because it makes you seem terribly incoherent too what's already been said, and on more than one occasion. I have justified my reasons (whether or not if some care to take it for what it is) and made clear my feelings towards the Duchess.

I like the title Princess Consort because I like it. Believe it or not, that's it. It has absolutely nothing to do with her bearing a lesser title, though granted that is what it would be. But it is for no ill feeling that I'd support her being created a Princess in her own right. Not that you'd be aware, and not that I'd expect you to be, but I'm not that kind of person. I have acknowledged that my reasons are my own, and would, I'm sure, differ to those of Clarence House and why it was even proposed.

Yes, it can be and I'm not sure why it is that some read only what they wish to read.

"only because of the circumstances in which Camilla, a married woman, sought (or rather, was the one sought out perhaps)"...

How does the above dismiss Charles's participation, if not posisble instigation? Quite simply, it does nothing of the sort and well brings him into the equation that was their relationship at the time.

Ahh the old agenda! It would appear I was not the only one puzzled by your post. I shortened your earlier post because the portions I removed did not contain the sections I was questioning. You seem to be inferring that you know what others are saying and indeed think and I asked you to clarify. I have left this one untouched as I would not want you to suggest anything salient was deliberately left out.

I am puzzled as to why you would not wish to see Camilla with her rightful title, which you say is because you prefer Princess Consort and for no other reason. Therefore I have to ask the burning question, would you have been happy for Diana to be called Princess Consort?

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin

Charles and Camilla did not stay above the fray during that mess. They did not phone up the press like Diana did but they had their henchmen like Nicholas Soames speaking to the media all the time...hinting that Diana was mentally ill and paranoid. One of the British papers even printed a laundry list of details on Diana's personal expenses that reputedly humiliated her so much she was reduced to tears..

Soames made his comments after the Panorama interview, I don't recall any evidence to earlier chats to the media from him. I don't recall the laundry list either, do you have a link or timeline to this story?

[BellaFay]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin

And I will never understand why Charles told Jonathan Dimbleby that he had never loved the mother of his own children...

Prince Charles never told Dimbleby that he had never loved Diana either in his tv interview or in the book. As for the list of Diana's personal expenditure - that was produced by her solicitors to back up her alimony claim.

[Madame Royale]

I think Madame_Royale is making it fairly clear that she's talking about the subset of British people who believe that Camilla shouldn't be Queen because of her presence in Charles's life during his marriage. If she herself believes that a unique situation is suited to a unique title, without laying blame for the cause of the CCD debacle, that's a different reason from the rather vindictive one which says that Camilla should be punished for breaking up Charles and Diana's marriage, an opinion held by the above-mentioned subset.

In other words, if I'm reading Madame Royale's posts right, she's talking about different reasons, some of which she agrees with and some of which she doesn't.

Thank you, Elspeth. You undertsood me precisely.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

I think Madame_Royale is making it fairly clear that she's talking about the subset of British people who believe that Camilla shouldn't be Queen because of her presence in Charles's life during his marriage. If she herself believes that a unique situation is suited to a unique title, without laying blame for the cause of the CCD debacle, that's a different reason from the rather vindictive one which says that Camilla should be punished for breaking up Charles and Diana's marriage, an opinion held by the above-mentioned subset.

In other words, if I'm reading Madame Royale's posts right, she's talking about different reasons, some of which she agrees with and some of which she doesn't.

I am afraid to me the post was far from clear. If as you say it is a belief that it is because of the unique situation, to many that is the same as punishing Camilla by use of a lesser title. That is why I ask, would the same people who say they have nothing against Camilla, etc have been happy to see Diana demoted to Princess Consort bearing in mind her admitted adultery?

As we have all been made aware, it is impossible to 'speak' for others without being asked for clarification. I am sorry Madame Royal saw ill intent where none was meant. You have asked me in the past to explain how or why I came to a conclusion, purely because my phrasing had not made my point clear. This I understood and I hope answered accordingly.

[milla Ca]

Originally Posted by BellaFay

Prince Charles never told Dimbleby that he had never loved Diana either in his tv interview or in the book. As for the list of Diana's personal expenditure - that was produced by her solicitors to back up her alimony claim.

Thank you for clearing up, BellaFay!

Like you, I´m sure not to read these statements in the Dimbleby book ( or hear them in an interview)!

Before using a book as a source it´s always better to read it.... !

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by BellaFay

Prince Charles never told Dimbleby that he had never loved Diana either in his tv interview or in the book. As for the list of Diana's personal expenditure - that was produced by her solicitors to back up her alimony claim.

That was probably why I had no recollection of a list produced by or for Charles.

[CaliforniaDreamin]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

That was probably why I had no recollection of a list produced by or for Charles.

Then why and how was it blasted all over the papers the next day with no denial from the Prince of Wales or his spokespeople? Was HRH content to let people just believe this lie? This very "he never loved her" line has been repeated in every bio I have read of the Princess of Wales since-

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin

Then why and how was it blasted all over the papers the next day with no denial from the Prince of Wales or his spokespeople? Was HRH content to let people just believe this lie? This very "he never loved her" line has been repeated in every bio I have read of the Princess of Wales since-

As I said, do you have a link. Bella Fay's explanation makes more sense to me, why would it matter to Charles what Diana's laundry bill amounted to? (sorry you seem to have altered your original post)

As you know neither Charles, Ch or BP denied or admitted anything printed by the media. perhaps you can give us some of the bios you have read it in, as to my knowledge or recollection Charles has never said he did not love Diana.

[CaliforniaDreamin]