The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #521  
Old 06-05-2006, 03:25 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 74
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:(
__________________

__________________
  #522  
Old 06-05-2006, 03:44 PM
Avalon's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,905
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.
__________________

__________________
Queen Elizabeth: "I cannot lead you into battle, I do not give you laws or administer justice but I can do something else, I can give you my heart and my devotion to these old islands and to all the peoples of our brotherhood of nations." God, Save The Queen!
  #523  
Old 06-05-2006, 04:13 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaan
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.
__________________
"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
  #524  
Old 06-05-2006, 04:31 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katemac63
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.
__________________
"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
  #525  
Old 06-05-2006, 05:02 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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 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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
  #526  
Old 06-05-2006, 05:14 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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..
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!
__________________
  #527  
Old 06-05-2006, 05:47 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
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.
__________________
"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
  #528  
Old 06-05-2006, 06:19 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: loughborough, United Kingdom
Posts: 1
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.
__________________
  #529  
Old 06-05-2006, 06:52 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
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.
__________________
  #530  
Old 06-05-2006, 06:53 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Welcome, bishopsmead! I'm sure you'll find a lot of things on this forum that interest you.
__________________
  #531  
Old 06-06-2006, 12:03 AM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 3,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
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. :p

Mind you, I don't know of any legal way to get around the fact of 'Prince Charles', unless of course, he was dead!
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
  #532  
Old 06-06-2006, 07:43 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
__________________
  #533  
Old 06-06-2006, 07:52 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
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
__________________
  #534  
Old 06-06-2006, 09:14 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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..:)
__________________
  #535  
Old 06-06-2006, 09:25 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katemac63
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.
__________________
"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
  #536  
Old 06-06-2006, 09:58 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katemac63
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!
__________________
  #537  
Old 06-06-2006, 10:14 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katemac63
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. :)
__________________
  #538  
Old 06-06-2006, 01:15 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon
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.
__________________
  #539  
Old 06-06-2006, 03:14 PM
Avalon's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katemac63
...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.
__________________
Queen Elizabeth: "I cannot lead you into battle, I do not give you laws or administer justice but I can do something else, I can give you my heart and my devotion to these old islands and to all the peoples of our brotherhood of nations." God, Save The Queen!
  #540  
Old 06-06-2006, 03:28 PM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
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?
__________________

__________________
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 469 07-03-2014 07:36 PM
King Charles and Queen Camilla BeatrixFan The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 1068 01-22-2007 12:10 PM
Charles and Camilla: Current events 1: Aug - Sept 2005 Elspeth Current Events Archive 194 09-12-2005 12:46 AM
Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles 2: July - Nov 2003 Alexandria Current Events Archive 163 11-21-2003 03:52 PM
Charles And Camilla news and pics 1: Oct 2002 - Oct 2003 Lorraine Current Events Archive 134 10-31-2003 09:31 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth bourbon-parma charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events dutch royal history fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta cristina infanta elena infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg ottoman pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince laurent prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marie princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia spain state visit visit wedding william


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

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV 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 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:56 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]