The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #381  
Old 05-17-2006, 10:29 AM
Little_star's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
The country was never against Camilla. The media was. The media hated her because she didn't provide them with endless snaps of leg and sparkle. Therefore, they reported that people disliked her, people tried to keep up with the Jones's and began to hate her because it was trendy. Now we see what a farce it all was.
I disagree. I think public opinion was very much against Camilla. I suspect that if Diana had still been alive their marriage would not have happened as smoothly as it did.

I think the only real reason people are willing to accept Camilla now is that they don't have Diana alive as a daily reminder. After all, when it comes to popularity she was (and probably still is) more popular than Camilla. As a result people have forgotten, so to speak, and are more willing to accept her.
__________________

__________________
Please give whatever you can to the DEC's Pakistan Floods Appeal. Millions of lives are at risk
http://www.dec.org.uk/index.html
  #382  
Old 05-17-2006, 10:36 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little_star
I disagree. I think public opinion was very much against Camilla. I suspect that if Diana had still been alive their marriage would not have happened as smoothly as it did.
I think the only real reason people are willing to accept Camilla now is that they don't have Diana alive
Their wedding would have been easier and earlier, Camilla was already being accepted at the time of the crash, their plans had to be put on hold!

The people in the UK who didn't particularly like Diana are more than happy to accept the woman that makes their PoW happy and content.
__________________

  #383  
Old 05-17-2006, 11:07 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,859
I disagree Little_star. Diana's death made their marriage harder not easier.
__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
  #384  
Old 05-17-2006, 11:18 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 589
Camilla and Diana are both mainuplative people in my eyes. They are both Cancerians in their nature. However I would be very happy for Prince Charles because he has married the woman he truly loved and whom loves him very much. Camilla is trying her best to do a good job at the age of 58 years old which is certainly very challenging for herself. I just want to wish Prince Charles and her best wishes because I believe Prince Charles will be a good king with Camilla by his side.
  #385  
Old 05-17-2006, 11:18 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kate Julie
You are not giving camilla enough credit here. She is tough! I think, too the reason most dislike camilla is because they remember the manipulating that went on. eg. helping to select the bride; trying to befriend her when camilla and charles had been envolved; for suggesting "she's as quiet as a mouse - won't be any bother"! For not tending to her own marriage! Those are my reasons.There is something sneaky about her, IMO of course!(Before Diana came totally into the picture)
I think for those that choose to believe, then yes manipulating a young girl into marrying your lover would cause some people to dislike Camilla but what people forget is that when a marriage breaks down as badly as Charles and Diana's the partners say things they never meant, they change their story, and their friends take sides and repeat exaggerated stories that they may not even be aware of. Its very common and it doesn't just happen with Charles and Diana.

I take a hefty grain of salt anything that was published or let known after 1986 when the marriage was apparently in trouble and these revelations fall in that category.
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
  #386  
Old 05-17-2006, 11:29 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 163
I remember the day Diana died. Actually it was about 11:00 PM Friday I think-maybe Saturday-when the news hit Philadelphia. I was with my grandmother and aunt for the weekend. My grandmother told me to turn on the news because she knew how much I loved following the BRF. After they pronounced Diana dead, immediately afterward came at least two weeks worth of back to back coverage.

The media was v. pro-Diana because Diana was willing to share her story, but at the same time, it seemed as if she has been the wronged in her marriage and I know that most Americans love to route for the underdog and it seemed as if that's what she was. I stayed up till the early morn watching the coverage those two weeks and throughout the American coverage (and I saw a lot off BBC coverage but I'll just stick to what I know) it was rather clear: Diana was painted the tragic heroine and the DOC was painted as the horrible woman who was half responsible for her sorrows. Next, came the interviews with some of the British subjects (am I allowed to say subjects?) and to this day I have to say most of them seemed v. chilly towards Prince Charles and Camilla. Some believed Diana would have never been where she was if she was still with Prince Charles.

All I'm saying is when I said earlier that it seemed as the country was not too pleased with Camilla or Prince Charles, I was just basing it on not only what some of British kinfolk were saying, but also what I was seeing on television. And it wasn't as if people didn't know all the stuff that Diana had did because all of the American Networks made sure to talk about all of Diana's mishaps, but when they did, it was almost as if she only made bad decisions because of all the wrong that had been done to her. Obviously most people don't think it's right to do wrong just because you've been wronged but, again, many people will sympathize or think it somewhat justifiable. I know I did; especially at twelve when it seems like everything is black or white (though I still see things that way LOL).

And now that times has passed and Camilla is princess, it seems to me that some just think it's okay to sweep what she and he did under the rug because her and the prince are now seen as the star-crossed lovers finally joined. Sure they have a bit of a tragic story that turned into a happy ending, but look at the price that it seems other people had to pay in order for her to be the "loving stepmother" and "devoted and supportive wife."

I do think that DOC and PC make an excellent couple. They are right for each other in everyway. Maybe they should have been together from the start. I don't deny that. They've lasted for over thirty years and Lord knows if that ain't love then I don't know what is, but I guess for me, my opinion of them really hasn't changed much just because of what happened during the middle of their relationship. But as long as the people of Britain are cool then it's your thang, you know? I mean at one point you just have to suck it up and think about what's good for the better of the country, and I have to agree-as much as I love Diana and believe that a lot of that stuff wasn't her fault-Camilla is much more stable. But then again, she always had the heart of the man who had hers.
__________________
"I had this garden party for my father's birthday, I said to RSVP cause it was a sit-down dinner, but people came who did not RSVP and so I was totally buggin'...but, by the end of the day, it was like, the more the merrier...So, if the government could just get in the kitchen, rearrange some things, we could certainly party with the Ha-ti-ans." Cher--Clueless
  #387  
Old 05-17-2006, 12:00 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,859
I think the main reason that alot of Royal watchers want to sweep Diana under the carpet is because they believe that Diana did more damage to the Monarchy than good. I certainly believe that. She was a wonderful celebrity but a hopeless consort and Camilla is a brilliant consort with no interest in being a celebrity. That's the difference.
__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
  #388  
Old 05-17-2006, 12:05 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , Singapore
Posts: 84
nonsense! they all did damage to the monarchy! diana is sweep under the carpet because she is no longer alive
  #389  
Old 05-17-2006, 12:16 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by xtan
nonsense! they all did damage to the monarchy! diana is sweep under the carpet because she is no longer alive
I just don't see why Diana has to be the one who is single handedly responsible for "damaging" the monarchy when it's Prince Charles who is actually the real royal. Shouldn't he be responsible for damaging his own family as well? What about Sarah Furgeson and Prince Andrew? The Royal Family has not been infallible since the day it came into existence, the only difference between then and now is that saying something about them in a negative fashion might have cost you a head back in the day.

Whatever one thinks of PC and the DOC now or then, it's only fair they take equal shares of tarnishing the BRF image (as if it wasn't a bit tarnished before then). Diana wasn't in this alone and neither were PC or the DOC.

I don't ever remember Diana trying to be a celebrity, it just happened. The media took a shine to her and went to town with hit. Maybe she did create some hype during the War of the Wales' but for initially, I don't think she was trying garner the attention. Besides there were many RF members who fancied being in the spolight before Diana and no one tries to sweep them under the rug. But then again, I don't know. Maybe you have.
__________________
"I had this garden party for my father's birthday, I said to RSVP cause it was a sit-down dinner, but people came who did not RSVP and so I was totally buggin'...but, by the end of the day, it was like, the more the merrier...So, if the government could just get in the kitchen, rearrange some things, we could certainly party with the Ha-ti-ans." Cher--Clueless
  #390  
Old 05-17-2006, 12:26 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vita
I just don't see why Diana has to be the one who is single handedly responsible for "damaging" the monarchy when it's Prince Charles who is actually the real royal.
Be fair, now. The previous post did say that "they all did damage to the monarchy." It sounds as though you're really in agreement with what xtan posted.
  #391  
Old 05-17-2006, 12:30 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,859
Hang on. You can't have it both ways. Diana was a member of the Royal Family and had the same duties, responsibilities and role to play as Prince Charles did so I think saying that Charles is 'the real royal' is a bit offish.

I don't deny that Charles and Camilla opened up avenues that really shouldn't have been brought to public attention but IMO Diana had her priorities seriously wrong and as a result did lasting damage.

Diana did try to be a celebrity. Indeed, I believe that she's responsible for the celebrity obsession we have today. She dressed to impress - it was all about photographs whether there was meaning there or not. She'd take on charity after charity but wouldn't visit them for years. She'd telephone newspapers to tip them off when she'd be visiting a children's hospice, "by suprise".

Celebrity doesn't just happen. The RF may have been in the media pre-Diana but they never did what she did - play to the cameras. They never broke that fourth wall, revealing intimate secrets about each other. And they never publicly criticised each other, turning the RF into Dallas and not an institution that has been the backbone of Britain for centuries.

Diana isn't swept under the carpet as much as I'd like her to be. She still graces the odd front page and she's still got her fan base. But that fan base is no longer the media. The media is a fickle band of brothers. As soon as Diana's hair had gone grey and her face had become wrinkled, they'd have moved onto someone new. It happens all the time. So no, she isn't entirely swept under the carpet. But it's very much a new era now.

Charles and Camilla have built up an image for themselves not through manipulated photoshoots but through hard work and quiet dedication. People now see Charles as a Royal in his own right who works hard rather than the bloke who has Diana on his arm. Surely you can see how damaging it was to have a consort behaving as if she were better than her husband? Surely you'd agree that having a Princess of Wales upstaging the Queen, sometimes on purpose, is damaging? Camilla doesn't do those things and so we get stability and the whole RF working together rather than a popularity contest which it turned into in the 80s and 90s.
__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
  #392  
Old 05-17-2006, 01:39 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 589
Charles and Camilla are more traditional people and they are born with those priviledegs ideas with traditional upper-class lifestyles:low-key, country like,etc. Diana was born in the same class but she was quite different either Prince Charles or Camilla. Diana was a royalty but she had too many celebrity features in her. I think I did prefer to low-key traditional royals and I think their inner quality attracted me more.

Diana and Charles were just ill-matched. Both are too strongwilled to let things to be done in the ways they wanted. Camilla is a much easily accomandated person. And she always puts Charles's happiness before everything. There is no mistake for Camilla wanted Charles to have an easy wife to live with and whom knows how to please Charles even spoil him. This is the way Camilla always loves Charles and she just assumes everyone will do that if they loves Charles. Her judgment about Diana was certainly terribly wrong. The story will be much different if Diana was an easily accomandated person but she was not. Charles is not easy to live and it is hard to for two difficult people to live with each other. That's the case for Charles and Diana.

Just best wishes to Charles and Camilla. They are soulmates and they are destined to be together.
  #393  
Old 05-17-2006, 02:03 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vita
Some believed Diana would have never been where she was if she was still with Prince Charles.
After the Morton book and media revelations, separation and divorce was guaranteed but, nobody forced her to live the life she finally chose. At 20+ everyone has to take responsibilty for their own actions, you simply cannot go through life blaming everyone else for what you have chosen to do or say.

Diana and Charles were like chalk and cheese, they should never have married.

Charles and Camilla on the other hand are perfect together and after all that they have had to endure over the past years, from strangers, they deserve at the very least some human kindness and understanding.
  #394  
Old 05-17-2006, 02:16 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,387
I'd like to remind people that this thread is about Camilla not Diana.

Certainly people's opinion of Camilla may be influenced from the events that happened during Camilla's and Charles' first marriages and its perfectly appropriate to comment about the first marriages and their previous marriage partners in this thread TO SOME DEGREE to support an opinion but let's not turn this into a Diana thread. Diana has a whole forum to herself.

ysbel
British forums moderator
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
  #395  
Old 05-17-2006, 02:20 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
Oh I think there were some genuine people who were serious Royal watchers and didn't like Camilla but the average joe didn't have a clue who she was or what she'd supposedly done but they got led into the opinion by the media which happens every day and is why I don't bother with newspapers anymore.

You are right - Camilla did keep herself out of the public eye and it must have been horrific for her. All those awful things said about her and she must have wanted to scream and give an interview clearing her name but she just let them do it.
Pray tell what you think camilla would have said? What could she possibily have said? At that point in her life she was an adulterous and mistress! What side of the story could she tell to clear her name?
  #396  
Old 05-17-2006, 02:56 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,387
Well if adultery is a sin (and many believe it is), Charles, Diana, and Andrew Parker-Bowles name has been stained by that sin.

From a strict ethical standpoint, if one of them couldn't clear their name by speaking out, none of them could.
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
  #397  
Old 05-17-2006, 02:56 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,859
Camilla didn't manipulate anyone in anyone's favour. She prepared a womb for the Crown, something that has been going on for centuries and is the only way you get decent stock in a RF. This time, it failed and so the RF have changed the way they marry. What Camilla did was no different to what her ancestor, Lady Castlemaine did with Charles II.
__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
  #398  
Old 05-17-2006, 03:03 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel
Well if adultery is a sin (and many believe it is), Charles, Diana, and Andrew Parker-Bowles name has been stained by that sin.

From a strict ethical standpoint, if one of them couldn't clear their name by speaking out, none of them could.
You are right about clearing their name, but some people expect more from the man who is going to be head of the COE, then the part he played . What give charles the right to think he can take another mans wife as mistress?That this is his God given right?There are times in everyone's life, they have to walk away...

{inappropriate comment removed - Elspeth}
  #399  
Old 05-17-2006, 03:05 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,859
Quote:
Yes indeed, evidence of her longstanding loyal support for the institution
Exactly. She could have pushed herself forward but she didn't. She did what she thought was best for the Monarchy and God Bless her for it.
__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
  #400  
Old 05-17-2006, 03:05 PM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kate Julie
Pray tell what you think camilla would have said? What could she possibily have said? At that point in her life she was an adulterous and mistress! What side of the story could she tell to clear her name?
One can imagine (That is, I can imagine) if oneis so inclined that the POW really wanted to have a good marriage with Diana. That he as a true gentleman said good-bye to a sexual relationship with Miss Shand the moment she became Mrs. Parker-Bowles. That he just stayed friends with her because they were in accord not only sexually but through their spirit, opinions etc.

(As an aside: I have such a former boyfriend - we are close friends even though we both married others. But then, both our marriages are happy ones and thus there was never any temptation to resurrect the past. But still I can imagine that happening to others).

Then Charles and Diana's marriage began to get sour for whatever reasons. The strain led both to look for confidantes. And Camilla was there - I'm sure we see the real Camilla at the moment: compassionate, friendly, stylish and able to give Charles the feeling he is a wonderful man.it happens that way and there is nothing special about it: Charles found in Camilla his counterpart because she was there in his times of need.

In my opinion we should not judge other people's decisions when we never led their life and felt their pressures.

But - in my opinion the fact that adulterous behaviour is frowned upon by most people does not necessarily mean that people who behave like that don't have an utmost human reason to react thus. Maybe they are weaker than we are who did not do it. But maybe they simply had experiences in their life, crashed hopes, lost wishes so that they turned to someone else for the compassion we all need sometimes. Lucky are those who find that compassion (like me) in their marriage. Lucky are those who are able to go public with the truth and are able to find an HEA with another after they paid the price. Unfortunate those who suffer because they find that marriage vows make cold companions when there is no longer love in marriage.

and believe me: I wish Camilla would tell some day the truth as she experienced it. I guess we would love her even more. But being the true friend that she is she will never wash Charles' linnen in public.
__________________

Closed Thread

Tags
camilla, duchess of cornwall, prince charles, prince of wales, public opinion


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Prince of Wales and Camilla Parker-Bowles: 9 April 2005 Claire Royal Weddings 468 10-16-2012 11:51 PM
King Charles and Queen Camilla BeatrixFan The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 1068 01-22-2007 01:10 PM
Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall Current Events 4: August-September 2005 Elspeth Current Events Archive 194 09-12-2005 01:46 AM
Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles News 2: July-November 2003 Alexandria Current Events Archive 163 11-21-2003 04:52 PM
Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles News 1: October 2002-October 2003 Lorraine Current Events Archive 134 10-31-2003 10:31 AM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit best outfit october 2016 camillas outfits catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander martha louise member introduction monarchy multiple births new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles prince harken in canada princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats princess victoria queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania royal fashion september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:12 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises