Camilla & Charles: What Is Your Opinion Now?

[Katemac63]

Yes we have and you gave no evidence then regarding who told you Camilla's intentions.

You are forgetting Camilla and Charles were friends and it is natural to want to make every effort to make his wife feel welcome. Do we hear the same thing about the welcome any of his other friends gave her, male or female, did they also have their eye on the husband to be?

I suppose there is no accounting for the way some people would rather see a bad side to IMO a genuine attempt at friendship.

Perhaps I should start to suggest all my husbands friends only befriended me to get closer to him (he should be so lucky).

With all due respect Skydragon, but your statement,charles and camilla were friends is a little understated! They had been lovers for YEARS! "it was natural to want to make every effort to make his wife feel welcome"..You see, after being lovers for years and the current history involved that he is now married to her, it was NOT natural - one can only surmise that camilla had her own agenda and reasons for wanting to be cosy with the wife of her "ex" lover? who obviously had passionate feeling for each other still ( at that time) as they are married today.

 

[Elspeth]

I am still looking for the link that say, "camilla was on the phone once a week to Stuart Higgins from the early 80's to the seperation and divorce of charles and DIana..
WHen I find that one I'll give you the link as well

You do realise you said "daily," not "weekly," right?

 

[Katemac63]

You do realise you said "daily," not "weekly," right?

No - for sure I meant weekly. That is what Stuart Higgins said.

"daily " was incorrect.

Sorry

 

[AgnesK]

Look up "John-Paul Flintoff: On the trail of Kelvin Mackenzie - Pharagraph #25.

www.etoile.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=24453&sid=24202caba7711341855bda00420B5238-81k

I am still looking for the link that say, "camilla was on the phone once a week to Stuart Higgins from the early 80's to the seperation and divorce of charles and DIana..
WHen I find that one I'll give you the link as well

Regards
Kate

Hi Kate

Tell me please where is the proof of Camilla calling any editor (let alone Sun's) ?

 

[Elspeth]

I think Stuart Higgins has confirmed that he talked to Camilla in the early 1980s when there were stories of problems in the Wales marriage, but I don't know about weekly or about how much she actually told him. It was mentioned briefly in the Frontline programme about Diana and the press.


NARRATOR: Prince Charles's friends mounted a general counteroffensive. They were all members of the British aristocracy, not usually in touch with the tabloid press.

STUART HIGGINS, Editor, "The Sun": That was the kind of circle of people that were involved- not directly. They weren't ringing up The Sun and saying, "That's complete nonsense. You've got it wrong," but those were the people that were working behind the scenes to protect, quite rightly, the Prince of Wales's position and also for him to maintain some dignity and integrity in the face of what was regarded as a terrible, terrible betrayal by the Princess.

NARRATOR: In Andrew Morton's book, the Princess had blamed her husband's relationship with Mrs. Camilla Parker Bowles for the breakdown of the royal marriage. Attention now turned towards this shadowy figure, who had met the deputy editor of The Sun in the early 1980s, when he worked as a royal reporter.
STUART HIGGINS: There were lots of occasions when I would ring her up and say, "Is this true? I don't want you to say anything. I won't quote you." And she would say, "No, it's complete cobblers." Now, I never thought of ringing her and saying, "Are you having a passionate, raging, torrid affair with the next King?" because I knew what the answer would be. I think she used me and, for all I know, other journalists and other people who spoke to her to know what was going on.


About three quarters of the way down this page:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/royals/etc/script.html

 

[Ariel]

What we know is that the three of them did things they shouldnt have done. We dont even know if Diana knew from the beggining that she was getting into a marriage without love. There are many question marks on this story and probably we will never know the truth.

 

[ysbel]

Katemac, you're making assumptions and presenting them as fact where others are saying we just don't know. A few of your assumptions below (bolding and color are mine)

They had been lovers for YEARS!

No we don't know that. See my post above.

one can only surmise that camilla had her own agenda

That is not the only thing that one can surmise; its only one interpretation of what may transpired because again we just don't know.

and reasons for wanting to be cosy with the wife of her "ex" lover? who obviously had passionate feeling for each other still ( at that time) as they are married today.

There's nothing obvious about it unless you were privy to Charles' and Camilla's relationship through the 70s, 80s, and 90s. Charles was passionate about quite a few ladies in the 70s and one Lady Jane Wellesley, he dated very seriously for two years. She was widely considered to be the next Queen.

Anyone who claims they know what was in someone's head on lack of evidence is going to get their version criticized on a public discussion board.

 

[shaan]

Actually what i see and read about is what diana's side of the marriage breakdown painting charles and camilla as horrible and unfaithful people etc - diana used andrew morton's book to present her side of the story and that was just it - just one side making diana out to be the victim at the hands of these 2 people - i still remember the panorama interview even all these years later and i thought my god it was all so fake - the dark suit the nomakeup look everything it made me wonder.I think lots of things that diana did were her way of getting back at charles and the RF even perhaps her relationship with dodi ( i am guessing ) but somehow i think that years after diana people may be starting to realise that perhaps diana was wrong about camilla all along.Diana had an agenda and perhaps this was the best way of going about it to tarnish charles' name etc that is what she wanted but maybe if she had lived people would have realized that she was not perfect and could actually be wrong which she often was in regard to all the people she trusted! I think camilla should be given a fair shake and maybe people may even end up liking her!

 

[Skydragon]

With all due respect Skydragon, but your statement,charles and camilla were friends is a little understated! They had been lovers for YEARS!

Well, as has been pointed out time after time, unless you were with them 24/7, you can't state that because you don't know.

One of the great sayings in the forces is 'assumption is the mother of all muck up's'.

 

[Katemac63]

Haven't come across this one before: Camilla "gave daily reports to a newspaper editor about the marriage of Diana and Charles." How, when, who, source?

Sorry Warren... I corrected my original post to show "weekly" and NOT daily...

Kate

 

[Katemac63]

You know, by the time Diana did that interview, IMO, after years of "why not me" to charles, she had her grievances so down pat - things that she mulled over forever in her head, it was like doing a role in a play she had rehearsed for years.. but that does not mean that her feeling about the situation had lessened. This gave her more confidence to get her points accross, her main one having 3 in the marriage.She wanted the world to know about the fairytale, and she got it out!She also gave her thoughts about charles ability to take the position of king and that she doubted his capabilities. Perhaps she thought since he couldn't handle his marriage and the conflict therein, the weakness extended to his ability to be king. She saw shortcomings that we, the outsiders never saw.
However, now that he has camilla, his main support , I'm sure he feels he can do anything, she being his crutch in life..To me that still shows weakness when you have to have someone behind the scenes, always giving direction to someone who would never have found that direction on his own!IMO

 

[Avalon]

I respect your opinion Kate, though don't agree with it.
I don't think Camilla was the vicious woman, who stole anyone's husband and I don't think Charles was an inattentive or not-loving husband.
A year has passed since the marriage of Charles and Camilla and during that time people (imo) could see the real side of Camilla, the side which, naturally, was never depicted by any of Diana-supporters.
You assume what her supporters said/say is true, I assume that the silence kept by Charles/Camilla side means more. It means, imo, that they are good enough people to have loyal friends because no one earns such loyality, if he/she is not a good person (again imo).
Everyonw has their opinion and yours, as well as mine, should be respected.
Just as an afternote, I would not like you regard me as someone, prejudiced against Diana, or someone, who dislikes her, because I always did and do like her. However I don't think her side of the C&C story is the right one.

 

[ysbel]

i still remember the panorama interview even all these years later and i thought my god it was all so fake - the dark suit the nomakeup look everything it made me wonder.I think lots of things that diana did were her way of getting back at charles and the RF even perhaps her relationship with dodi ( i am guessing )

Yes it is guessing. Diana put out a lot more of herself than Camilla and I agree with you that some people are re-thinking how Diana portrayed her marriage but we are as ignorant of why Diana gave the Panorama interview as we are of Camilla's friendship with Charles in the beginning.

 

[ysbel]

Perhaps she thought since he couldn't handle his marriage and the conflict therein, the weakness extended to his ability to be king.

If Diana truly thought Charles' shortcomings in their marriage extended to his ability to be king, that would be a major leap of assumption. I'm not sure she made that assumption.

A failed marriage does not necessarily translate into not being able to do one's job. Several successful executives and public figures have had failed marriages without impacting their ability to do their jobs.

 

[Elspeth]

You know, by the time Diana did that interview, IMO, after years of "why not me" to charles, she had her grievances so down pat - things that she mulled over forever in her head, it was like doing a role in a play she had rehearsed for years.. but that does not mean that her feeling about the situation had lessened. This gave her more confidence to get her points accross, her main one having 3 in the marriage.She wanted the world to know about the fairytale, and she got it out!

She got it out very well in the Morton book. It was her choice at the time to not be associated with it, but it seemed to be an open secret that she was very involved with it indeed.

She also gave her thoughts about charles ability to take the position of king and that she doubted his capabilities.

Indeed, and if she'd spent five seconds thinking about it, she might have realised how destructive that would be for her. It looked for all the world like retaliation for his unfaithfulness, and I think most people are aware that in an acrimonious breakup, people will say all sorts of things that don't make sense but are just intended to hurt.

The other little thing she said was about wanting to be Queen in people's hearts. That was a clear, if somewhat indirect, attack on the Queen. Under other circumstances one might think that she'd been disastrously badly advised, but it's been made clear that she didn't get advice about this interview but had decided for herself what to say.

Perhaps she thought since he couldn't handle his marriage and the conflict therein, the weakness extended to his ability to be king. She saw shortcomings that we, the outsiders never saw.

She saw shortcomings that a lot of people who did know him never saw, by the looks of things.

However, now that he has camilla, his main support , I'm sure he feels he can do anything, she being his crutch in life..To me that still shows weakness when you have to have someone behind the scenes, always giving direction to someone who would never have found that direction on his own!IMO

He can't do a damn thing right for you, can he? Even having a deep long-term relationship with a supportive woman is somehow a symptom of his essential worthlessness. If you were a bit less extreme about this, you might find people taking you more seriously.

 

[Skydragon]

You know, by the time Diana did that interview, IMO, after years of "why not me" to charles, she had her grievances so down pat - things that she mulled over forever in her head, it was like doing a role in a play she had rehearsed for years..

Did you watch the documentary that said it took her almost the whole day to get the interview how she wanted herself portrayed, with the downcast eyes arranged by adjusting where she sat? I wonder how many hours she spent before that getting it 'down pat', one week, two. IMO, You are right about one thing, to her it was just another role that she spent a lot of time rehearsing.

This is an excerpt taken from the full transcript of the Panorama act and if you read it, you will see that Diana never said he was having an affair, just that he loved someone else. Worded very carefully so that some people would jump to the conclusion that it must have been an affair.
Bashir. And with a husband who was having a relationship with somebody else?
Di: With a husband who loved someone else, yes.

All smoke and mirrors!

 

[ysbel]

I wasn't sure what Diana's intentions were when I saw the interview.

After the Morton book was published and it was widely reported that Diana collaborated with it, I thought that the marriage didn't have a chance with that book in the public domain and the Royal Family suspecting she had a part in it.

Then years later when she confirmed her participation in the interview, I was sure that the marriage was broken beyond repair. Its not an action someone takes when they have some hope of saving the marriage. Yet she repeated that she didn't want a divorce (with a marriage like that, I couldn't understand; her reasoning 'What about the children' didn't make sense; children are equally if not more hurt when their married parents are in a combattive state than they are when the parents finally divorce)

She also made the statement that she wanted to do more royal engagements outside of Britain but the establishment wouldn't let her. However, I can't imagine how she would think the Queen would allow her to do more overseas engagements after that interview. It was a more natural reaction that the Queen would curtail her royal engagements once she gave an interview without royal consent which of course is what happened when the Queen told her and Charles to divorce.

I could understand her statement about being Queen of hearts because the interviewer had asked her if she thought she would be Queen one day. John Major's statement at the separation that there was nothing to prevent Diana being Queen was initially met with disbelief. Diana said no, she knew she would never be Queen but she wanted to be Queen in people's hearts.

Adding to the confusion was that her statements were definitely rehearsed though she had a reputation of being very spontaneous. I hadn't seen the documentary that spoke about the rehearsal so I can't comment on its veracity but I do work in HR where we interview job applicants and we're trained to probe answers that seem rehearsed. She had a habit during the interview of not answering the question that was asked (this is a common diversionary tactic in press and job interviews) and her interviewer didn't probe a lot of her vague statements that could have used some probing.

The effect was not very enlightening as to Diana's intentions. I'm sure she thought it was very important to do and she had certain goals but what they were I think were known only to her. The only outcome I could see from that interview was the divorce when eventually happened.

But to bring the conversation back to Camilla, reactions like mine to the interview and the book are two reasons why people are giving Camilla a second chance so to speak and allowing our opinions to be formed from what we see now rather than depending on Diana's version which is unclear at best not only on the facts but also on Diana's intentions of releasing this information in this way. So in effect we are evaluating our opinion of Camilla because while we may have liked Diana at the time, and some of us still find things to admire in her, we find her version of the events is in our judgment not the most reliable.

That does not mean we disbelieve everything Diana said but we're taking it with a hefty grain of salt.

 

[bishopsmead]

This is my first post. I was against Charles and Camilla but am surprised by how my opinion has changed. The wedding was a lovely event and I was impressed by Camilla's poise on what must have been a trying day for her.
Since then they both seem so happy. I was and am a Diana fan and what happened what terrible but Charles has to live his life and Camilla certainly seems to give him so much support. William and Harry seem fond of her and must if nothing else be glad to see their father such a changed man.

 

[Elspeth]

I could understand her statement about being Queen of hearts because the interviewer had asked her if she thought she would be Queen one day. John Major's statement at the separation that there was nothing to prevent Diana being Queen was initially met with disbelief. Diana said no, she knew she would never be Queen but she wanted to be Queen in people's hearts.

Oh, I could understand it, but I don't see that she could have cooked her goose any more effectively if she'd been trying. During the Queen's lifetime, if the Queen isn't queen in people's hearts she's in trouble, seeing as how we have a constitutional monarchy. During Charles's reign, she was apparently expecting that any wife of Charles's wouldn't be really accepted as Queen, and during William's reign (it was, after all, a reasonable expectation that she'd outlive Charles), she was still expecting that the actual Queen would play second fiddle to the Queen of Hearts. To me, it was one of the most deeply selfish things she ever said, and I remember thinking at the time that the Queen must have been dismayed. It was an almost overt declaration of war.

 

[Elspeth]

Welcome, bishopsmead! I'm sure you'll find a lot of things on this forum that interest you.

 

[MARG]

It was an almost overt declaration of war.

I think the whole interview was staged to be exactly that.

With Diana, 'Queen of Hearts' (and the power behind the throne) as King William ruled having managed to convince the world that Prince Charles was unfit to rule.

Mind you, I don't know of any legal way to get around the fact of 'Prince Charles', unless of course, he was dead!

 

[Katemac63]

I wasn't sure what Diana's intentions were when I saw the interview.

After the Morton book was published and it was widely reported that Diana collaborated with it, I thought that the marriage didn't have a chance with that book in the public domain and the Royal Family suspecting she had a part in it.

Then years later when she confirmed her participation in the interview, I was sure that the marriage was broken beyond repair. Its not an action someone takes when they have some hope of saving the marriage. Yet she repeated that she didn't want a divorce (with a marriage like that, I couldn't understand; her reasoning 'What about the children' didn't make sense; children are equally if not more hurt when their married parents are in a combattive state than they are when the parents finally divorce)

She also made the statement that she wanted to do more royal engagements outside of Britain but the establishment wouldn't let her. However, I can't imagine how she would think the Queen would allow her to do more overseas engagements after that interview. It was a more natural reaction that the Queen would curtail her royal engagements once she gave an interview without royal consent which of course is what happened when the Queen told her and Charles to divorce.

I could understand her statement about being Queen of hearts because the interviewer had asked her if she thought she would be Queen one day. John Major's statement at the separation that there was nothing to prevent Diana being Queen was initially met with disbelief. Diana said no, she knew she would never be Queen but she wanted to be Queen in people's hearts.

Adding to the confusion was that her statements were definitely rehearsed though she had a reputation of being very spontaneous. I hadn't seen the documentary that spoke about the rehearsal so I can't comment on its veracity but I do work in HR where we interview job applicants and we're trained to probe answers that seem rehearsed. She had a habit during the interview of not answering the question that was asked (this is a common diversionary tactic in press and job interviews) and her interviewer didn't probe a lot of her vague statements that could have used some probing.

The effect was not very enlightening as to Diana's intentions. I'm sure she thought it was very important to do and she had certain goals but what they were I think were known only to her. The only outcome I could see from that interview was the divorce when eventually happened.

But to bring the conversation back to Camilla, reactions like mine to the interview and the book are two reasons why people are giving Camilla a second chance so to speak and allowing our opinions to be formed from what we see now rather than depending on Diana's version which is unclear at best not only on the facts but also on Diana's intentions of releasing this information in this way. So in effect we are evaluating our opinion of Camilla because while we may have liked Diana at the time, and some of us still find things to admire in her, we find her version of the events is in our judgment not the most reliable.

That does not mean we disbelieve everything Diana said but we're taking it with a hefty grain of salt.

Thank you, Ysbel for a fair and unbiased and well articulated post! You said it all without the tone of nastiness. I realize that the book and the interview were the final downfall for Diana and I'll bet she knew it too.She should have surrounded herself with better council , if she had any at all at that time.Again , my view of the threesome goes back right to the start of the marriage. What Diana did regarding the book and the interview, IMO and view, would never had been had the marriage been without camilla on the scene.Again, charles had the control to change the path his marriage took, if he had eliminated "his good friend and lover" from the picture.

 

[Katemac63]

She got it out very well in the Morton book. It was her choice at the time to not be associated with it, but it seemed to be an open secret that she was very involved with it indeed.



Indeed, and if she'd spent five seconds thinking about it, she might have realised how destructive that would be for her. It looked for all the world like retaliation for his unfaithfulness, and I think most people are aware that in an acrimonious breakup, people will say all sorts of things that don't make sense but are just intended to hurt.

The other little thing she said was about wanting to be Queen in people's hearts. That was a clear, if somewhat indirect, attack on the Queen. Under other circumstances one might think that she'd been disastrously badly advised, but it's been made clear that she didn't get advice about this interview but had decided for herself what to say.



She saw shortcomings that a lot of people who did know him never saw, by the looks of things.



He can't do a damn thing right for you, can he? Even having a deep long-term relationship with a supportive woman is somehow a symptom of his essential worthlessness. If you were a bit less extreme about this, you might find people taking you more seriously.

Whoa Elspeth - you're losing it!!
He did everything right and correct in my opinion, all his life and a life that I followed with interest - until it came out that he preferred other men's wives "who were safe". Just stepping in and taking what was NOT his! Regarding his "deep and long term relationship " just how many "deep " relationships did charles have whilst having his "deep and long term " with camilla?
Personally I don't care if you or anyone else takes me seriously but when I do post ONE post that criticizes charles and or camilla I hear from their fans. One should be able to give their view that is what this and other forums are about.


http://wwwtheroyalforums.com/forums...ines-4920.html

 

[Katemac63]

I respect your opinion Kate, though don't agree with it.
I don't think Camilla was the vicious woman, who stole anyone's husband and I don't think Charles was an inattentive or not-loving husband.
A year has passed since the marriage of Charles and Camilla and during that time people (imo) could see the real side of Camilla, the side which, naturally, was never depicted by any of Diana-supporters.
You assume what her supporters said/say is true, I assume that the silence kept by Charles/Camilla side means more. It means, imo, that they are good enough people to have loyal friends because no one earns such loyality, if he/she is not a good person (again imo).
Everyonw has their opinion and yours, as well as mine, should be respected.
Just as an afternote, I would not like you regard me as someone, prejudiced against Diana, or someone, who dislikes her, because I always did and do like her. However I don't think her side of the C&C story is the right one.

Thanks Avalon for your post. I respect your view and opinion very much and can see the reason in it. However my views are always based on the events taking place at the beginning of the marriage and the part all played.What has come out IMPV, was charles's position in the marriage.. I won't rehash things like the cufflinks on the honeymoon and such.. but my main view is had there been no camilla, at all in the picture, had charles had whatever it took to totally end it, PERHAPS the marriage might of gone in a different direction. I honestly do not respect either of these persons for the part they played. Diana likely ( and maybe would have) would not have gone off in the direction she did as well.I agree she used very bad judgement in a lot of incidents, but then again , so did charles .
Thanks again..

 

[ysbel]

Again , my view of the threesome goes back right to the start of the marriage. What Diana did regarding the book and the interview, IMO and view, would never had been had the marriage been without camilla on the scene.

Hm, Kate. I don't know about that; I think, Diana did have a choice as to how to respond to the situation. At the time of the Panorama interview, she was 34. She was one year older than Charles when he had married Diana, an age when most people agree Charles was supposedly was old enough to have known better than to go into the marriage. If he was old enough to know better than to go into the marriage at 33; I think she was old enough at 34 to second guess her participation in the Panorama interview.

I think at the heart of it, Diana had a comfort level with putting out herself and details of her personal life for public consumption that Charles and the rest of the Royal Family didn't have. That was the basis, I think, for the incompatibility, not only with Charles but with the rest of the family. I think because of her nature, she would have gone public with any serious problems in the marriage regardless of whether Camilla was one of the problems.

Camilla, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have the need to get her version of the story out which after the things have been said about her, would have been understandable even if her version had been as one-sided as Diana's.

Camilla doesn't have the need to have her personal details out in public; and in this respect, she fits in with the way the Royal Family operates - not only as an institution but as a family. Different families have different dynamics - Camilla's approach works better within this family dynamic than Diana's did.

Also not much has changed about Charles' basic character since he first married Diana. Charles has always been known to be close to his friends and old girlfriends. It was true when Charles married Diana and Charles still keeps close touch with old girlfriends now that he's married to Camilla. Lady Jane Wellesley was invited to both weddings. In one sense Camilla is marrying Charles under some of the same circumstances that Diana married him.

There are some key differences though. Camilla is older and wiser than Diana was when she married and Camilla knows Charles a lot better than Diana did and because these women are in her circle of friends she knows them very well and can make an intelligence guess on whether she can handle a marriage with a husband who keeps old girlfriends as friends. Camilla also benefits from the fact that having risked his first marriage and his reputation for Camilla, Charles would face extreme condemnation if he didn't try everything to make hus marriage with Camilla work.

 

[Skydragon]

Regarding his "deep and long term relationship " just how many "deep " relationships did charles have whilst having his "deep and long term " with camilla?

This is an excerpt taken from the full transcript of the Panorama act and if you read it, you will see that Diana never said he was having an affair, just that he loved someone else. Worded very carefully so that some people would jump to the conclusion that it must have been an affair.
Bashir. And with a husband who was having a relationship with somebody else?
Di: With a husband who loved someone else, yes.

All smoke and mirrors!

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I realize that the book and the interview were the final downfall for Diana and I'll bet she knew it too.She should have surrounded herself with better council , if she had any at all at that time.

We know nothing of the council Diana had or had not but we could see what she did. So it is her who is responsible for the mess she created. As Charles is responsible for the mess he created.

Honestly: if Diana had the guts to just ask for a divorce when she saw that there was no sense in holding on to her marriage then I would have been the first to applaud! But to go public the way she chose showed me that she not longer seeked a chance of reconcilliation (right word?) but was out for revenge: she wanted to keep her position (if necessary via William - as Queen Mum II) and she wanted to punish Charles and the system of the monarchy. I do see that this is only one facet of her personality - the loving, caring Diana being another and I still mourn her as the world has lost a positive influence with her.

BUt:We know nothing of what really happened behind the doors of the palace but we can see today how much real chivalry and care for others the Prince of Wales possesses. He has his character flaws just like Diana did, I'm convinced about that. There were two to produce a mess and both seemed to do all they could in producing public results of this mess.

It's over now for quite some time and all that is left from these ashes is a grown-up, caring and responsible prince with a wife that offers comfort and a good feeling to all the (underprivileged or not) people they meet. It's sad, yes, that Diana is not longer there to do the same, but that's how it is and I for one am glad that life showed people that good can come out of such a mess as the one created by Diana and Charles.

For me, Camilla has all a queen needs: style and compassion and an air of honesty around her that tells she is able to deal with the ugly side of her past without having to do TV-interviews to "tell all". She just is Camilla and I like the Camilla I have gotten to know a bit from the way she does her public job.

 

[Elspeth]

This is an excerpt taken from the full transcript of the Panorama act and if you read it, you will see that Diana never said he was having an affair, just that he loved someone else. Worded very carefully so that some people would jump to the conclusion that it must have been an affair.
Bashir. And with a husband who was having a relationship with somebody else?
Di: With a husband who loved someone else, yes.

All smoke and mirrors!

Well, I'm not sure what period of the relationship they were referring to, but I don't think it was any great secret by then that Charles and Camilla were having an affair which had resumed during Charles's marriage.

However, the assertion that he wasn't faithful to Camilla during that time is considerably less well documented; the implication that his relationship with Camilla was not a deep one is not in accord with the way they behave toward each other now or with the substance of the Camillagate tape.

 

[Avalon]

...but my main view is had there been no camilla, at all in the picture, had charles had whatever it took to totally end it, PERHAPS the marriage might of gone in a different direction. I honestly do not respect either of these persons for the part they played. Diana likely ( and maybe would have) would not have gone off in the direction she did as well.I agree she used very bad judgement in a lot of incidents, but then again , so did charles...
Thanks again..

I can agree that had there not been Camilla, Charles and Diana MIGHT still be married but what kind of marriage would it be? I really can see a very unhappy Prince Charles, as well as a very unhappy Princess Diana. It was not about Camilla, imo, it was because Charles and Diana were really different people. They simply didn't fit in with each other. They might divorce peacfully and be good friends and parents for their children, but then it was an option with Camilla around as well, wasn't it?
Camilla gave Charles what Diana never did and never could: confidence, support, even admiration. I did not mention love because, again just a private opinion, I do think that Prince Charles and Lady Di loved each other, at least at the beginning of the marriage.
I just wish Lady Diana was alive and would find someone, who would give her everything Camilla gave her to Prince Charles.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Well, I'm not sure what period of the relationship they were referring to, but I don't think it was any great secret by then that Charles and Camilla were having an affair which had resumed during Charles's marriage.

However, the assertion that he wasn't faithful to Camilla during that time is considerably less well documented; the implication that his relationship with Camilla was not a deep one is not in accord with the way they behave toward each other now or with the substance of the Camillagate tape.

Do we have any facts or safe assumption as to when Charles rekindled his affair with Camilla?

IIRC the first edition of the Morton-book does not even state that Camilla had an affair with Charles. Or am I wrong here?

When exactly did the public find out that Camilla was in fact Charles' mistress? I mean, it was pretty clear that she was it at the moment of the "tampax"-tapes. It was clear that she always had a part in his life as one of his circle of friends. It believe it is proven that Camilla had an affair with Charles before her marriage to Andrew Parker-Bowles.

But what kind of proof exists that they had an on-going affair from the beginning?

So far, I believe that Charles and Camilla had a liaison while they were both single. They had again an affair after Charles' marriage had broken down irrevocably. Camilla has been always been a friend of Charles. At some point in his marriage he turned to her for advice. She advanced from friend to confidante to advisor to comforter to lover to soulmate. I've no idea when these stages of development happened. So I'm not sure that Diana's remark about "three in a marriage" meant that Charles was unfaithful from the beginning but see it at least as a possibility that Diana was jealous because there was another person who got a part of Charles that Diana believed was her right to have.

In other relationships it's the husband's love for sports or spending time with old (male) friends or the wife's habits of going shopping with her girlfriends who starts that circle of loneliness, jealousy and bad feelings which slowly forces the couple apart till there is enough space between them for a thrid or even fourth party. It does not necessarily mean that there had been an affair right from the beginning.

Looking back it's easy to say that Charles should have never let Camilla come that close to him to fall for her again. Or that Diana should have tried more to be a real companion for him by sharing more habits and hobbies. Well, it didn't happen. But coming back to my first question: is there any proof when the new affair started between Charles and Camilla?