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

[rmay286]

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.

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.

And I second the agreement because that is exactly how I feel.

I don't think Charles has ever made personal statements about never loving Diana and as for never denying these claims, members of the royal family can't go around affirming/denying everything that is said about them.

Nevertheless, I may not have an exact source, but I do know that authorized biographies of Prince Charles, after the separation, revealed a lot of Diana's negative traits--the hysterics and melodrama and eating problems. They didn't have to. Regardless of Diana's behaviour, Charles could have taken the high road and refused to allow his biographers to leak the less pleasant details of Diana's personality--even if it was the truth.

Sarah and Andrew have made their mistakes, but it's impossible to find criticism of each by the other, even indirectly...ie., not only has Andrew never said a word against Sarah, but there aren't even any "friends" of Andrew who go around supporting him by exposing Sarah's failures in the marriage. We know about these through Sarah's own indiscretions and her indiscreet "friends"--but never through anyone associated with Andrew. I don't think it's possible to say the same for Charles' friends and that's why I use this example...to show that it's possible to rise above one's partner's failures a whole lot more than Charles did.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by rmay286

Nevertheless, I may not have an exact source, but I do know that authorized biographies of Prince Charles, after the separation, revealed a lot of Diana's negative traits--the hysterics and melodrama and eating problems. They didn't have to. Regardless of Diana's behaviour, Charles could have taken the high road and refused to allow his biographers to leak the less pleasant details of Diana's personality--even if it was the truth.

I thought the Dimbleby book was the only authorised biography of Charles that's been written since the separation, but I could be misremembering. Which other books did you have in mind?

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by rmay286

Nevertheless, I may not have an exact source, but I do know that authorized biographies of Prince Charles, after the separation, revealed a lot of Diana's negative traits--the hysterics and melodrama and eating problems.

Prince Charles's aides plotted against Diana - Telegraph

The Sunday Telegraph has learnt that the first draft of Jonathan Dimbleby's authorised biography of the prince detailed how Diana became "too close" to Mr Mannakee. Royal sources say that Mr Dimbleby obtained the information for his book, The Prince of Wales, because Charles sanctioned that long-serving staff, including other protection officers who knew of the affair, could be interviewed by the author and broadcaster.

Yet it was the prince who, after reading the first draft, persuaded Dimbleby to remove passages relating to the affair.
It is understood the request was made on the grounds of "taste" and because Charles did not want to distress his sons.
According to senior sources, he did not dispute the accuracy of what Mr Dimbleby had written: the heir to the throne had learnt about his wife's affair in 1986, eight years before the Dimbleby book was published.
The attempts by staff to "out" the affair were, however, only temporarily thwarted. It was eventually disclosed by Penny Junor in her "unauthorised" book Charles: Victim or Villain? published in 1998, a year after Diana's death

I too thought Dimbleby's was the only authorised version.

[rmay286]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Prince Charles's aides plotted against Diana - Telegraph I too thought Dimbleby's was the only authorised version.

You're right, I reread my own comment and realized I didn't mean to say that. I wasn't sure Dimbleby's was the only authorized one but it was certainly the only authorized one I could think of, when I re-read what I'd written! I do find it interesting, though, that biographers who claim to be sympathetic to Charles or portray him in a sympathetic light (like Penny Junor) hint that Diana was unstable. It's like closeness to Charles means automatic distancing from Diana.

I'm not saying Charles is guilty of directly slandering Diana, but I don't like the fact that supposed "friends", aides or staff of Charles feel no scruples about revealing some of Diana's nastier behaviour. Once again I use the example of Prince Andrew...if someone decided to write a biography of him that exposed a lot of Sarah's indiscretions and painted Andrew as the wronged party, I'm pretty sure the response would be stronger than a tacit "that biography wasn't authorized." Andrew would probably tell the media he wanted nothing to do with that biographer. Where is Charles' complete and total distancing from biographers who criticize Diana? I don't think he would ever say anything publicly against her, but I think if he were totally displeased that some biographers showed the other side of Diana, he would come out against them fairly strongly. I understand where CaliforniaDreamin is coming from by asking "where were Charles' denials?" Sometimes silence can speak louder than words.

[scooter]

pg 283: 'If his betrothal to Diana Spencer was hardly the love match for which his friends had hoped, that she perhaps wanted, and which the nation certainly assumed, he was determined tht their marriage should suceed'. As Skydragon has asserted, it is widely believed among the Prince's supporters that the marriage was badly limping already by the first anniversary. When exactly do you think he was in love with her if not when they married? I will look through the later chapters after I get the kid to bed, for further quotes.

[Al_bina]

When it comes to Prince Charles and Duchess of Cornwall, there is always an aide, who leaks information. A usual boring story ... Could the Clarence House do a better job hiring employees? Obviously not ... I dare to assume that money always wins over loyalty.

[scooter]

Yes, but the quote I referenced is in the sanctioned by the POW Dimbleby book, not leaked from an aide.

[MARG]

Am I imagining things, or have we really, once again, done a 180 degree turn and time-warped back over ten years. Instead of exploring how things and even people have changed for better or worse over the years, we are once again posturing on "who is to blame?" rather than "Camilla and Charles: How has you opinion changed since the Wedding?"

Rather than gnashing my teeth at the futile retrospective bile, I think I will take a rest from this thread until it has morphed back to the future - 2008!

[rmay286]

Originally Posted by MARG

Am I imagining things, or have we really, once again, done a 180 degree turn and time-warped back over ten years. Instead of exploring how things and even people have changed for better or worse over the years, we are once again posturing on "who is to blame?" rather than "Camilla and Charles: How has you opinion changed since the Wedding?"

Rather than gnashing my teeth at the futile retrospective bile, I think I will take a rest from this thread until it has morphed back to the future - 2008!

I understand where you're coming from. But to just talk about the present seems to me like a way of excluding any kind of negative opinion. Of course people who have a negative opinion have that opinion because of Charles and Camilla's past misdeeds. The Prince and Duchess of Cornwall seem happily married and a fairly model Prince/Princess now, there's little to overtly dislike even if one doesn't love them.

But Charles and Camilla don't just exist in the present, their pasts are part of them too. So I don't see why the past shouldn't be mentioned. The reason my opinion of them hasn't changed is mainly because I've never felt the two of them changed. Only the circumstances changed. Charles reminds me of a little boy who was told not to eat a cake, ate half of it anyway and then got sent to his room for punishment, but afterwards got to finish the cake because it could no longer be served for guests for dessert! So is he sorry he disobeyed and ate the cake, given that he got to eat it all anyway? Or is he sorry that he got punished?

Sorry if that's a bad analogy, but while I have no doubt that Charles regrets some of the unpleasant consequences of his affair, like the divorce, the effects on his sons, and the bad press, in the end, he still got what he wanted: Camilla. I never figured out why Charles and Camilla are supposed to be so different now from who they were in the 1980s. They're still with each other, the only difference is that they're legally married. If all of the sudden today, for whatever reason, Charles couldn't have Camilla again, would he say: Well I am just going to have to accept that I can't get what I want; or would he try to be with her regardless of the implications for everyone else? If the former, I'd think he'd changed; if the latter, I'd think his love for Camilla was still what it always was--self-centred and immature. I like Charles even if it doesn't sound like it. I just thought he was immature back in the 1980s and the way he and Camilla conducted their relationship was immature and selfish. And while there's no proof he wouldn't be worlds more mature about it now and avoid Camilla completely until after a divorce from Diana, I'm never sure why all of the sudden the fact that these two are married means that they are different people.

[Roslyn]

So, rmay286, would it be fair to say that your opinion of Camilla & Charles has not changed since the wedding?

[Polly]

Charles and Camilla's past will, necessarily, always hang like the proverbial albatross around their necks. And, if she were alive, so would that of the late Princess of Wales'.

So far as I can determine, this thread is about the present, with some small, naturally occurring intimations, towards the future.

This thread's question remains: How has your opinion changed since the wedding?

It is not about who did what to whom and who's guilty and should bear the most blame in the past lives of any of these protagonists.

All responses should address the curent issue without delving into the past too closely. There is ample opportunity within these forums to do otherwise, should you so wish.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by rmay286

I understand where you're coming from. But to just talk about the present seems to me like a way of excluding any kind of negative opinion................I'm never sure why all of the sudden the fact that these two are married means that they are different people.

Quote shortened. People do change over the years, as do relationships. Even the school friends you had, may take a direction you disagree with and if you meet up, you are like complete strangers. Others you see after 40-50 years and it's as if you have never been apart. So what happens if the person you marry is not or cannot offer what you need. I don't think it is because they are now married, they are different people, but now that they are married they have a chance to make one another happy and offer hope to others, that it can all work out in the end. Had Diana lived, would anyone have begrudged her happiness, if it had meant an end to the sniping. If as Diana aged and was seen to be happy, would the vitriol have continued?

Many people marry and then realise they have made, for them, terrible mistake. Then despite their best efforts (Charles & Diana) it just isn't working. Would we rather they had stayed together, with the hatred growing over the years because of the pretense, until they both became bitter old people. Is that what we would really wish for anyone? The old adage of 'staying together for the sake of the children', probably caused more damage than those who divorced, IMO.

Surely we reappraise relationships all the time and try to show kindness and understanding to those who are 'on the path', but took a different route to the one we would have chosen for them.

[Mermaid1962]

My opinion on Charles and Camilla hasn't changed much, but I think that I'm getting more used to seeing them together.

Originally Posted by Polly

This thread's question remains: How has your opinion changed since the wedding?

[Roslyn]

Nice sentiments expressed in that last post of yours, Skydragon. I enjoyed reading it.

[Kezza]

I'm with you there Mermaid1962.

I have gotten used to seeing them together.

I personally didn't like the Charles/Camilla/Diana dramas that went on in the 90's, in fact I got fed up of hearing it and watching it on the tv shows such as 60 minutes all the time.

[rmay286]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

So, rmay286, would it be fair to say that your opinion of Camilla & Charles has not changed since the wedding?

Yes but it was never hugely negative before the wedding, much as it may sound that way. I do understand why people divorce, believe it or not. It's just that it's more than plain everyday divorce affecting my opinion of Charles and Camilla, and I just don't see any essential differences between Charles and Camilla of the past, and of the present.

But to keep this thread on topic, there have been a couple of small but positive changes in my opinion. I expected Charles to be happier around Camilla, but I think his personality really changed more than I expected. He acts so happy and bubbly now and he was so serious before.

I also think Camilla has adjusted to the royal life better than I expected. I think being considerably older than past royal brides, and having a gradual introduction to the family as opposed to a whirlwind courtship, helped with that.

[judith14011]

Here's my take: no. I don't feel any differently about C and C now as opposed to before. Both of them strike me as extremely self-centered and selfish. Charles, IMO, is very much like his reviled Uncle David the Duke of Windsor. Charles is different in that he was allowed to go on as POW with "the woman he loved" - even if both of them had spouses and young children. Times have changed, but perhaps not for the better. I thought so in 1992 and I think so now. At least I'm consistent! I will say one this for Camilla - she seems very down to earth, humorous and charming in her own way. I will just never feel about her the way I felt about Diana, warts and all. She will never measure up in my eyes to the Princess of Wales (who was also humorous and charming - and a humanitarian unlike any other member of the RF) and the world is a bit sadder for the lack of her presence.