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

[Skydragon]

I see a late luck and happiness for two of those involved and may the third rest in peace.

Amen to that!

 

[Elspeth]

Also, I am confused about this "provide the link!" mandate...for example you yourself have countered with the story that Diana herself told several people that she and Charles were in love. But YOU didn't provide a source or a quote yourself other than to say that it was in an Ingrid Seward interview. For the record I remember reading somewhere that the late Princess told someone that too, but wasn't I chastised about making vague statements precisely like that one, because I didn't provide a link to back it up? So when is a link required and when it is not??

Thanks in advance.

Following up from my previous post, I'm back from vacation and here's the quote.

"The Queen and Di" by Ingrid Seward (hardback edition, 2000), page 6.

---It was Prince Philip's name, though, that drew the angriest response. 'I don't like the way he shouts at his staff and I always tell William he must never shout at people who can't answer back,' she told me, adding, 'the Windsor men have notoriously bad tempers.'
---She knew. She had been married to one for fifteen years. She had given herself a cue but she did not pick it up. Instead of the tirade I was half-expecting, she talked with wistful affection about the man who had been her husband. 'Charles absolutely loved me,' she said in a silvery voice which sounded as if it belonged to a little girl. 'It's very hurtful to our children when people say we didn't love each other.'
---She paused, shaking her head and giving me a sidelong glance to see how I was reacting. She continued: 'It was the people around us. They didn't give us a chance. The trouble with Charles is that he listens to the last person he spoke to.'

 

[Russophile]

Oh that's interesting in that it seems that Diana twisted the truth however she wanted to look at a certain time. But that's just me.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Oh that's interesting in that it seems that Diana twisted the truth however she wanted to look at a certain time. But that's just me.

She was always allotting the blame to somebody else - but in the scenario Elspeth quoted I'd say she probably wasn't talking to him anymore, so others stepped in...

Hm, when you read the Dimbleby-book about Charles pre-wedding, then there is a Charles who has had his own mind but has been dutiful and acting on accepting his duty and following advice. Re the question of being a team that Diana mentioned in the Panorama-interview: Diana obviously saw her popularity as something she brought to the team of The Prince and Princess of Wales, because Charles, by his own account, was not so easy with people. But if I think of the way Dimbleby describes the advice Charles got from childhood from all sides, then for the advisors and Charles there could only be The Prince of Wales as heir to the throne and his supportive wife. So there was a conflict which could not be solved because Diana was two-faced and started at one point to upstage Charles in public due to their private problems, thus making him believe in his advisors.

While Camilla never tries to upstage him but is how the wife of the prince should be: supportive and concentrated on issues fitting for the wife of the heir (social, health, caring for injured soldiers). She never wanders off in political fields, but helps him to loosen up in public so he can make the points that are important to him. Plus he is older now, of course.

 

[Skydragon]

Also, I am confused about this "provide the link!" mandate...for example you yourself have countered with the story that Diana herself told several people that she and Charles were in love. But YOU didn't provide a source or a quote yourself other than to say that it was in an Ingrid Seward interview.

I don't have a great problem with the majority of the moderators not posting links, rarely are they trying to 'slant' an article to match their interpretation. No matter how much I may disagree with Warren, Elspeth, TheTruth etc, on the whole I trust their integrity.

Many posters (and I mean that generically) do tend to put 'I remember', 'I heard' or 'I read' and then it turns out that their memory is slightly skewed. I expect I am one of the main culprits in asking for a link or date. I prefer to read the article myself, many times someone has stated as fact an article that contains the words 'according to rumour' and they seem unable to 'see' that it is rumour not a fact.

Take the recent quote from the Diana Chronicles (I know different printings may be altered), but I can find no sentence or sentiment that matches what was stated on the 6 pages I have checked.

 

[LadyCat]

Many posters (and I mean that generically) do tend to put 'I remember', 'I heard' or 'I read' and then it turns out that their memory is slightly skewed.

Hmmmm must be pick on Cat day! I have to say I am guilty of this, and with alarming regularity. Hopefully one day I'll learn to check my facts before I post so I don't have quite so much egg on my face (at least it's supposed to be good for the complexion).

Cat

 

[Mermaid1962]

I use those terms because I don't want to be adamant about something that I don't have at hand at the moment. That's why I use "I remember" or "rumour was"...because I can't be absolutely definite all the time. If I were writing an article or a term paper, I'd list definite sources; but posts on a message board are usually made "on the fly."

Hmmmm must be pick on Cat day! I have to say I am guilty of this, and with alarming regularity. Hopefully one day I'll learn to check my facts before I post so I don't have quite so much egg on my face (at least it's supposed to be good for the complexion).

Cat

 

[Russophile]

Hmmmm must be pick on Cat day! I have to say I am guilty of this, and with alarming regularity. Hopefully one day I'll learn to check my facts before I post so I don't have quite so much egg on my face (at least it's supposed to be good for the complexion).

Cat

Really? Cuz I thought it was Pick On Russo day as Warren caught me in one of those very situations!

 

[cuckoo]

I think I have got a great change with my opinion to Camilla, I now think she is a great woman and a good wife since she married Prince Charles.

 

[xlouisex]

mo the pair havent changed my view i dont like them and i never will am afraid. too much forgiving and forgetting in britain i think

 

[inka7]

I am also not a supporter of the couple but if they are happy together they should be just let enjoy their company and life.

 

[inka7]

I think I have got a great change with my opinion to Camilla, I now think she is a great woman and a good wife since she married Prince Charles.

I think the Duchess has more experience and maturity to take the role of let's say a partner of the Prince of Wales. She is also only doing what she has to do and avoiding much public exposure with the support of the staff I guess.

 

[Skydragon]

I think the Duchess has more experience and maturity to take the role of let's say a partner of the Prince of Wales. She is also only doing what she has to do and avoiding much public exposure with the support of the staff I guess.

We must be watching a different woman, as just reading through the threads, it is possible to see how much public exposure she has! Shall we just say WIFE to the Prince of Wales?

 

[inka7]

Wife is one thing, but being the partner of the Prince of Wales in respect to his public duties e.g. support for his work and initiatives is another.

We probably hardly know the Duchess as a wife - unless one of us has met her. And I have not.

I know her as a public figure and except for her charities I do not know her official and personal opinion on let's say global warming. That's why I said "partner" because just the word "wife" refers to something else.

She has supported his word not just as a wife but as a partner.

 

[milla Ca]

I know her as a public figure and except for her charities I do not know her official and personal opinion on let's say global warming.

I think the way we see her ´working´ in public at official duties, together with the Prince and also alone, and her patronages and charities shows a lot about her personlity and her opiniones.
You can read here in the threads much about her and also if you open the Pow website:
(So maybe you will understand what i mean)

The Prince of Wales - Charities and Patronages

 

[Skydragon]

Wife is one thing, but being the partner of the Prince of Wales in respect to his public duties e.g. support for his work and initiatives is another.

On that we will have to disagree. To truly be a wife, support in many areas, (beliefs, ideals, work) is a major factor.

 

[inka7]

If my husband likes car racing (that's not his main hobby) but I hate the noise, the hectic, the crazyness of this sport as an individual I have the choice not to go and not to support him. I did not pledge by marrying him I will be going to all those crazy for me events. I have nothing against him going and nothing against the sport - it is just not my cup of tea.

A partner is someone who is also into that....the Duchess is not just the wife, she is the buddy, she goes a long.

On that we will have to disagree. To truly be a wife, support in many areas, (beliefs, ideals, work) is a major factor.

 

[Skydragon]

If my husband likes car racing (that's not his main hobby) but I hate the noise, the hectic, the crazyness of this sport as an individual I have the choice not to go and not to support him. I did not pledge by marrying him I will be going to all those crazy for me events. I have nothing against him going and nothing against the sport - it is just not my cup of tea.

A partner is someone who is also into that....the Duchess is not just the wife, she is the buddy, she goes a long.

That of course is your choice, but if this is something he really enjoys, it would help to have his partner by his side to celebrate when he wins or commiserate when he loses. There is nothing quite like being 'there' at the time, whether you enjoy the sport or not.

 

[inka7]

But that's why he also has his other friends, his partners.

As a wife I obligatory go where I have to go to support him.

And that's what I meant by partner initially ... We do not know the duchess as a wife, the way she is at home or privately with the Prince of Wales.

We know her officially....

as a partner. In her situation she doesn't have that much freedom.

A man/wife is a more tender relationship than what we see in public.

 

[inka7]

It will help to have his wife at his side who can chose to go or not to go.

A partner goes.

 

[Skydragon]

It will help to have his wife at his side who can chose to go or not to go.
A partner goes.

Then you have answered your own criticism of Camilla.
Things must be different in your country, here a wife and/or partner can choose whether to attend or not, even a royal wife, Marriage is/should be a partnership, IMO.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Exactly. Marriage isn't the total sacrifice of oneself to the other's will. There has to be an independance to it or else it's all too clingy and it ends up in disaster. As we've already seen...

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Then you have answered your own criticism of Camilla.
Things must be different in your country, here a wife and/or partner can choose whether to attend or not, even a royal wife, Marriage is/should be a partnership, IMO.

I have to say that even though I live in the same country as Inka, I don't get her meaning at all. So it's definately not different in Germany.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Well Camilla chose for herself. She wasn't forced into anything. She remains her own woman as well as being a wife, mother and consort.

 

[inka7]

The Duchess cannot chose not to attend something she is obliged to attend as a wife - that's what I was saying.

And we do not know her as a wife.

The public doesn't know her as a wife.

Then you have answered your own criticism of Camilla.
Things must be different in your country, here a wife and/or partner can choose whether to attend or not, even a royal wife, Marriage is/should be a partnership, IMO.

 

[milla Ca]

Then Things must be different in your country,

Noooooo, luckily not !!!
( Jo´s and my marriages seem to be the best examples...)

 

[Skydragon]

Exactly. Marriage isn't the total sacrifice of oneself to the other's will. There has to be an independence to it or else it's all too clingy and it ends up in disaster. As we've already seen...

Marriage is easy, as long as he does everything I tell him too! As Abba said

Her man is one I admire, He's so courageous but he's constantly tired, Each time when he speaks his mind, She pats his head and says, ÒK that's all very fine
Exert that will of your own, When you're alone, Now we'd better hurry

Noooooo, luckily not !!!
( Jo´s and my marriages seem to be the best examples...)

I am relieved to know that, along with some other very dear German friends!

 

[rmay286]

But that's why he also has his other friends, his partners.

As a wife I obligatory go where I have to go to support him.

And that's what I meant by partner initially ... We do not know the duchess as a wife, the way she is at home or privately with the Prince of Wales.

We know her officially....

as a partner. In her situation she doesn't have that much freedom.

A man/wife is a more tender relationship than what we see in public.

I don't know why everyone is having so much trouble understanding this. It makes sense to me. Appearing in public is the "job" of members of the royal family. In private life, most people don't accompany their spouses on their jobs. Royal spouses are expected to.

We know a fair bit about the public lives of Charles and Camilla as "working partners" in their royal duties. We know very little about their private life at home as husband and wife. Yes, they are also husband and wife in public, but in public we only see a small aspect of their lives. If my mom and dad worked together in public, they wouldn't act identically to the way they act at home. Public behaviour is never a full and fair representation of private behaviour.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I don't know why everyone is having so much trouble understanding this. It makes sense to me. Appearing in public is the "job" of members of the royal family. In private life, most people don't accompany their spouses on their jobs. Royal spouses are expected to.

We know a fair bit about the public lives of Charles and Camilla as "working partners" in their royal duties. We know very little about their private life at home as husband and wife. Yes, they are also husband and wife in public, but in public we only see a small aspect of their lives.

I understand you perfectly. And I happen to agree with you. This goes not only for married Royals but for all couples in the spotlight, by the way.

 

[jcbcode99]

I believe that they must have an excellent marriage--filled with positive interactions (not to say that they don't argue because all married couples do) but the proof is in the pudding. Look at how well they get along and play off each other in public. He looks relaxed (whereas he did not in his previous marriage) and they simply complement one another. They have an ease about their relationship; you can plainly see that there is a mutual respect and affection between that most likely transcends over into public life from their private lives.