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

[Elspeth]

General discussion about religion and ethics should be done in the chat room, please.

[Empress]

Frankly, I think that it all boils down to a few things. Camilla, as a divorcee, was not entirely acceptable as a spouse for a future sovereign historically speaking. Diana or no Diana. However, times change, and she was accepted. Frankly, I find this a bit sad, not because I like her or don't like, I don't have any particular feelings for her or Diana, but I think that it is sad because as a future monarch and supposed "upper crust" it is the job of Charles to set the standards for his "people". Anyone who is in any position of influence should realize this and take it seriously. I think the behaviour of all three was appalling! And not at all respectable, and then to follow it up by breaking entirely with tradition in one fell swoop, marrying a divorcee, and then giving her a lesser title is just stupid.

Now as to whether a new title should be created for Camilla, I should hope not. Titles should have some historic signifigance and not be thrown about willy nillly as an "I'm sorry" or other senseless gesture.

And I agree that her children from a previous marriage should not benefit from her current marriage publicly at least.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Empress

..... I find this a bit sad, not because I like her or don't like, I don't have any particular feelings for her or Diana, but I think that it is sad because as a future monarch and supposed "upper crust" it is the job of Charles to set the standards for his "people".

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

Aristocrats and upper classes are still human.

[Empress]

I agree that they are still human, and it's not so much the divorce that is sad, but the behaviour that surrounded it, before and after. And so publicly...

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Empress

I agree that they are still human, and it's not so much the divorce that is sad, but the behaviour that surrounded it, before and after. And so publicly...

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

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

[LadyCat]

Originally Posted by scooter

Look, it was going to be an uphill battle when they decided they wanted to marry, constitutionally as well as the man in the street issue. There was a BBC poll at the time of the engagement that about 2/3 of the respondants took the position that if Charles wanted to marry Camilla he should step down from the succession.

Charles and Camilla's engagement announcement was not even a blip on my radar, unfortunately. My life was pretty crazy at the time it happened so it went pretty much unnoticed by me.

I really didn't intend to come across as blaming Diana and her still loyal following for the situation. Usually I refrain from responding to various posts or voicing my opinions in the heat of the moment because it ends up sounding much like a rant, as in this case.

I place little faith in these so-called public opinion polls, as they usually are not in keeping with actually public opinion for various reasons. Let's face it, the person most likely to respond to an open poll is the person strongly against the subject. Those who are ambivalent or "for" it generally feel no need to voice it, the detractors are not so silent.

There are quite a few irrational minds when it comes to Camilla. Some dislike her because of Diana, some for other reasons. But is it not all water under the bridge after so many years? Charles and Camilla are obviously happy, despite claims by various news outlets to the contrary. Camilla carries out her duties with grace, dignity, class and warmth. She has proved to be quite an asset to the Royal Family despite the bad press from years ago. In short, she has been excellent Duchess of Cornwall, and will make an excellent Queen.

Cat

[Empress]

I don't think that (at least for me) that it has anything to do with the current situation of Charles and Camilla. I think that everyone has a right to be happy. For me it is simply that they all (all 3 of them) behaved badly, especially since they were in a public sphere and knew that everything they did would be detailed minutely in the papers, and both Diana and Charles encouraged that by airing their dirty laundry in public with interviews. Wrong on all accounts. Camilla should have stayed away from a married man just as Charles should have had the gumption to either stay true to his vows or bow out gracefully, whilst Diana should have stayed true to her marriage vows, or at the very least they should have been discreet.

The lack of respect for the state of marriage is my problem with all three of them. And the fact that they clearly did not consider the children involved when they started trashing one another publicly just makes me angry. Why should I feel sympathy for any of them or think that Charles deserves to be King any more than Diana or Camilla deserved/s to be Queen when none of the three managed to behave with a modicum of respect in the past. Granted Camilla did not air her dirty laundry in public, and for that I commend her, but she did conduct an affair with a married man. I think that a monarch should be an example of how people should lead their lives. And if they choose to do things that are morally reprehensible then they should at least be discreet. I think that it would be difficult for anyone to follow in QEII's footsteps, but they should at least attempt to do so if they want to be a respected monarch.

Now, having said that, I think that Camilla has done well since becoming Charles' wife. But for me, her previous actions can't be wiped out any more than the other two.

However, if I must choose which one I think behaved with the most class (and I use that term sparingly) then I would have to choose Camilla, because she at least attempted to keep the whole mess quiet, at least from her end.

[jcbcode99]

I agree that all parties in this debacle share the blame--who holds the most blame? That is a question for considerable debate (as this thread has amply demonstrated) but as much as I admire and respect Prince Charles perhaps he is at the most fault for being so charming, having two women love him must have not always been a walk in the park, and he should have married Camilla when he had the chance. I do think he loved Diana and wanted to make it work but she had her own set of issues, he had his, and both were probably rather selfish. The least selfish person in this whole situation was probably Camilla, who never really wanted anything more than Charles' love and was probably quite happy going on her way in the country wearing her muddy boots. I believe she has been unchanging or unwavering in her love and committment to him--and quiet to the tabloids, televison, and books. Her discretion is what makes me applaud her; it is that type of trait which will make her an excellent Queen, because she is the wife of the monarch it is the title she deserves, and in my opinion, has earned.

[Empress]

And there is the crux of the matter. Frankly I don't think (and I hope) that she does not give a fig about whatever her title is. If she truly married for love and would be happy with her muddy botts, then she does not care is my opinion. And if she does care, well, then I would think less of her. A person should choose to be with someone for who they are and not what they are to become. Or what they can gain from the marriage.

[Al_bina]

With all due respect, jcbcode99, but your depiction of Duchess of Cornwall is a way too ideal and somewhat Utopian. She is supposed to be human with all negative and positive traits. Am I correct? She made her choices after pondering over them, I dare to assume. Yes, she was and is discreet, but selfless is questionable. No one is selfless, when it comes to love.
Generally speaking, people expect too much from the British Royal family that is keen on showing their human side. Saving the face is not so important nowadays anyway. People, who dislike Duchess of Cornwall for any reason, should keep in mind that everything tends to be temporary in this world. It is as simple as that.
By the way, I am in fully agreement with Empress' opinions on the matter.

[jcbcode99]

It may be too idealized and utopian (a word I love, by the way, that is not used much anymore) but I honestly see her that way. Now, I agree that everything is more complicated than I stated--but it was a quick summation of my take on it. But, honestly, Camilla never talks to tabloids, her friends don't talk, there is none of this behavior that we have seen elsewhere; she is happiest in the country and those Camilla-gate tapes prove that she loves Charles for Charles.
That being said (and apologies to Warren for moving away from topic brieflyl), Empress raises a point that has not been discussed as much as I thought it would have been: Camilla doesn't really care about her title. I have to say that I would probably agree with that statement--she doesn't strike me as the sort to ride a tricycle around Buckingham Palace singing "I'm going to be Queen"--she's very low-key. But, even if she doesn't care about her title does that mean she should receive a lesser title? I don't think it does--I base my rationale for Camilla being Queen on the fact that as the wife of a King she should hold the same rank. If that does not happen, I do like the idea of HRH The Princess Consort, Duchess/Countess of something she can pass down (even if Tom doesn't necesssarily deserve it I'm sure the grandchildren would appreciate the gesture). I happen to think that is a good compromise not dissimilar to what occurred with Prince Phillip.

[Madame Royale]

title she deserves

I admitt, I find this interesting and it make's one think, for the first time throughout the whole process, about what is entitled by tradition, and what is deserved via action's.

There is needless to say, a comparable difference and it is here that I find it becomes a question of substantial bearing on the matter.

I live not in a world of ignorance, and I fully understand, as I always have, that the Princess Consort alternative was mentioned, and proposed, only because of the circumstances in which Camilla, a married woman, sought (or rather, was the one sought out perhaps) the extra marital companionship of another, the Prince of Wales, who himself being a married man, consented to an affair. An adultress, a mistress, a homewrecker and a cheat, who against the sanctity of her vows, endeavoured to partake in a sexual liaison with a married man and in the process, would not forgo the pursuit even when it became public knowledge. Unfortunately, and I mean unfortunately, for a great many Camilla, no matter the style or titles she now hold's and will proceed to bear as a lawful and devoted wife, will, as a consequence of all those years back, be 'the other woman', and that is something which, I believe, a vast array of peoples in Britain continue to begrudge her for.

Adultress, wife, Duchess, Queen? Perhaps Clarence House has made the best decision, no matter the traditional entitlements of a reigning consort. The situation, no matter what anyone says, is unique and should be accorded the diligence it so deserves.

The thought of Camilla being crowned Queen does leave a bad taste in the mouths of more than perhaps it should, and what a society of hypocrites we live in. Though of our leaders and figureheads we expect (though realise they are human themselves), that they represent what is good and wholsome in society. Charles and Camilla however represented the opposite and the public can remain relatively unforgiving of people who they believe have let them down, one way or another. And though it may sound weird to some, the royal family really is the centre of British culture and nationalism and their actions have a kind of ripple effect through society. No matter the class.

So, while she may be entitled to become Queen, it perhaps has more to with what scoiety percieves as being deserved and what it is they believe inspires that confidence.

Now, the above does not expresses my personal thoughts on the affair, because it has always remained my strong belief that what's their business is their business and my wanting of Camilla to be created Princess Consort is not influenced, in any way, by her past actions, or the past actions of her husband. It just so happened I really liked it, and through it all was able to identify a very real and supportive opinion of it for an array benevolent reasons which I continue to stand by...

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Madame Royale

....SHORTENED QUOTE.... An adultress, a mistress, a homewrecker and a cheat, who against the sanctity of her vows, endeavoured to partake in a sexual liaison with a married man and in the process, would not forgo the pursuit even when it became public knowledge.........
So, while she may be entitled to become Queen, it perhaps has more to with what scoiety percieves as being deserved and what it is they believe inspires that confidence.

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

Now, the above does not expresses my personal thoughts on the affair, because it has always remained my strong belief that what's their business is their business and my wanting of Camilla to be created Princess Consort is not influenced, in any way, by her past actions, or the past actions of her husband. It just so happened I really liked it, and through it all was able to identify a very real and supportive opinion of it for an array benevolent reasons which I continue to stand by...

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

[MARG]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

. . . . You state you have nothing against her and yet you would be happy to see her denied her rightful title. That you like the title Princess Consort, why, because it is a lesser title?

In these few words you seem to have identified the big contradiction in terms.

Nothing against her/May actually quite like her BUT Don't want her to have her rightful title = Queen.

This is so utterly bizzarre. It beggars belief that people can actually rationalise this position.

[LadyCat]

If Camilla can be labeled "an adultress, a mistress, a homewrecker and a cheat, who against the sanctity of her vows, endeavoured to partake in a sexual liaison with a married man and in the process, would not forgo the pursuit even when it became public knowledge[Madame_Royale]" ca