The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall

Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #821  
Old 01-04-2009, 07:15 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
Charles was never the colonel of the Blues and Royals, nor was he the Colonel-in-Chief of the Royal Army Veterinary Corps.
Thank you for that.

Then the argument isn't that Charles was sleeping with the wife of an officer in a regiment in which he held a position just that he was sleeping with the wife of an officer in the army. Even less likely to cause a great deal of angst as there is nothing to be gained or lost by either officer.
__________________

__________________
  #822  
Old 01-04-2009, 08:55 PM
scooter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,340
Perhaps it is the animal trainer in me, or perhaps it is that I have a 6 year old who I am trying to teach by example (which in a perfect world I would like the PoW and DoC to be as exemplary as QEII) what is proper/acceptable behavior, but it really makes me furious when bad behavior is rewarded as spectacularly as it has been with the Charles and Camilla situation. Certailny, there are things that I think Charles is to be commended for (the environment, for example, although there too he is guilty of the do as I say not as I do) and things I would think he would enhance (I think the gardens at Highgrove are magnificent and would look forward to his influence in the Monarch's gardens). As far as the whole officer sleeping with a subordinate's wife, the rules forbidding it exist so that there is not a King David, Bathsheba situation where the superior officer can arrange to have the inconvenient husband sent to the front. Regarding your question about the Camillagate tape, my primary objections were Camilla refering to her husband as 'it' and both Camilla and Charles hoping that the ambulance strike of 1989, at it's height during the camillagate tape, which cost the british people E35Million and was then 3 monthes old, should continue so that it would facillitate their affair. APB's Army unit was in charge of substituting for the striking workers, so the strike kept him conveniently occupied far away. I also cannot conceive of any situation where I would allow any friend of mine to use our house as an assignation venue to commit adultery (which was what the bulk of the camillagate call was about). So, there you have it. I hope that this expains a bit to you why these 2 are not on my favorites list.
__________________

__________________
  #823  
Old 01-04-2009, 09:14 PM
sirhon11234's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,464
Well we probably will never know we're all just speculating. But does it make it difference today though? Charles and Diana are divorced and he's married to Camilla now.
__________________
"I think the biggest disease the world suffers from in this day and age is the disease of people feeling unloved."
Diana, the Princess of Wales
  #824  
Old 01-04-2009, 09:14 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,494
Charles and Camilla are who they are and did what they did. If you are looking to them for morality, forget it. That they love each other and have made a good match, yes. Time has past, Andrew has not seemed to have a problem with this, he laid down his wife for his country and Diana is dead for over 10 years. Yes, if you have some religious convictions, adultery is being rewarded. If you feel God doesn't interfere in the mundane lives of mortals, then there you have it. That Charles didn't sleep with the wife of an officer in "his regiment" is poppycock, of course. But, no discouse will change what has happened. The POW only has high minded ideas for some things and he is exempt.
__________________
  #825  
Old 01-04-2009, 09:18 PM
scooter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,340
It's not a religious matter to me (I am myself an atheist). But I do believe that human civilization has to have a set of rules that are to be adhered to so that we dont descend into chaos. I also believe that one of the Monarchy's key roles is an example, which QEII has been stellar at. I am sorry that the heir and the wife fall so far short.
__________________
  #826  
Old 01-04-2009, 09:35 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,494
Monarchy has outlived its time and now is acts no differently from anyone else, they just get paid more for nothing. I know there will be those who will argue this, but sad to say they are no different, nor were they ever. Since they had roles to fulfill for some and don't, well that is the problem. You are right. The days of a QEII are waning. It is over.
__________________
  #827  
Old 01-04-2009, 09:58 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 5,189
I can't say that I think better of Charles and Camilla than I used to, but OTOH I don't think worse of them either. They're a fact of life for me but excite no great interest nor any great gnashing of teeth.
__________________
  #828  
Old 01-04-2009, 10:31 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
it really makes me furious when bad behavior is rewarded as spectacularly as it has been with the Charles and Camilla situation.
I think it depends on what you think a reward is.

I don't see marriage as being a reward but more of a responsibility. The message from the Queen seemed to be that if Camilla was going to enjoy the private side of her son, then they'd better make it legal and both take on the public responsibility that he was born to.

Actually, morally and ethically, I think they did the right thing by marrying. Everything is straightforward and above board now that they're married whereas before it was not. Both being in public positions that are tied to each other requires them to take responsibility for their relationship whereas before when it was just a private relationship, they didn't have to.
__________________
"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
  #829  
Old 01-04-2009, 10:31 PM
scooter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,340
Charles' mother (not so much father), Grand Parents, and Great Grandparents all were admirable examples for the country...pretty much all . Even Uncle David I admire on a certain level because he was willing to do what was best for the country (by way of the PM), even if he wanted to marry the unsuitable wife, as opposed to the whole have his cake and eat it too that Charles has accomplished.
__________________
  #830  
Old 01-04-2009, 10:46 PM
NotAPretender's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: WPB FL/Muttontown NY, United States
Posts: 853
My opinion since their wedding? Unchanged.

Since their wedding, what I have seen is a concerted effort on the public relations front to burnish the two to a high gloss, and with no one to gainsay their incremental glorification, a trend toward swallowing of the Koolaid. A significant bumble here and there - vigorously defended here by - how did Al Bina so diplomatically put it? - "deeply devoted" fans of those who closely identify themselves with this couple, certainly; seriously, what half-wit thought that it was a good idea to shove the DoC to the front row of a Diana memorial? Yes, yes, the party line is that the kids asked for her...sigh. Again, one side only is presented of this ever-more-glistening tale.

I tend not to be manipulated by such efforts, and look to actions rather than words. The actions I see are congruent with my opinions, also based on their actions, from before their "wedding."

Which is to say, I see them both as opportunists, willing to set aside any other considerations for their own self-gratification. The only difference is that the relishes and dressings that they pile on their actions are more sophisticated.

I read somewhere rather recently that the famous roll-tossing-at-Camilla when her adultery with Charles was pitilessly exposed is now being pooh-poohed as mere urban legend, or gossip, or an apocryphal tale. I gather by the time these two are laid in their tombs, Camilla will have been sanctified as a medically certified virgin until her marriage in 2005, and her children the by-blows of Evil Andrew's multiple affairs which she nobly raised as her own to support her husband. Rather than indulging their more carnal lusts, the Camillagate tapes will show instead that she and Charles were using code-words to describe their vigorous prayers to avoid the occasion of sin; and that Diana secretly headed the international drug cartel as well as smuggling arms to the Taliban (her travel schedule!) while giving birth to the posthumous child of Idi Amin.

Charles was spineless; Hamlet, at least, got over his dithering at some point. Camilla, in spite of the many infusions of cash to get her over such as the losses in the Lloyds of London debacle and the upkeep of an estate for Charles' and hers' convenience of rooting, was at the end of a financial rope.

Opportunists.

What has changed? She dresses a bit better, but someone needs to inform her that heaving papery bosom-flesh of women of a certain age is best concealed. Perhaps someone here of the same age who is certainly her most intimate companion can inform her that mutton dressed as lamb is still mutton. And when it starts to acquire the shimmery rainbow, well....
__________________
"Me, your Highness? On the whole, I wish I'd stayed in Tunbridge Wells"
  #831  
Old 01-04-2009, 10:48 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
Charles' mother (not so much father), Grand Parents, and Great Grandparents all were admirable examples for the country...pretty much all . Even Uncle David I admire on a certain level because he was willing to do what was best for the country (by way of the PM), even if he wanted to marry the unsuitable wife, as opposed to the whole have his cake and eat it too that Charles has accomplished.
How is any country harmed by Camilla and Charles being married? (You contrasted them with Edward VIII doing the best thing for the country, so the only logical conclusion is that their marriage is to the detriment of the country). I also don't see a "reward" for "bad behavior."

And on a complete hijack meant to be totally tongue-in-cheek, I've never understood what the point of cake is if one isn't meant to eat it. I suppose some are very pretty cakes that look nice just sitting...
__________________
  #832  
Old 01-04-2009, 10:50 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotAPretender View Post
I tend not to be manipulated by such efforts, and look to actions rather than words. The actions I see are congruent with my opinions, also based on their actions, from before their "wedding."
It was a real wedding.
__________________
  #833  
Old 01-04-2009, 11:01 PM
NotAPretender's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: WPB FL/Muttontown NY, United States
Posts: 853
Oh, heavens!

Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
It was a real wedding.

Let's not get started on that. It was the perfect example of that to which I am referring - the endless doctoring of the image, the blundering, the stop-gap measures, the machinations. Have you truly forgotten the incredibly intricate maneuvers required for these two to be joined? If yes, I can certainly find ample references for your perusal. Do please let me know by PM, the method by which I will respond to you point-forward.
__________________
"Me, your Highness? On the whole, I wish I'd stayed in Tunbridge Wells"
  #834  
Old 01-04-2009, 11:24 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
Monarchy has outlived its time and now is acts no differently from anyone else, they just get paid more for nothing. I know there will be those who will argue this, but sad to say they are no different, nor were they ever. Since they had roles to fulfill for some and don't, well that is the problem. You are right. The days of a QEII are waning. It is over.
You talk as though Charles and Camilla were the first senior royals to have extramarital affairs. I'd agree that so far William and Harry (and Beatrice and Eugenie) aren't showing much interest in royal duties and royal life, but if you look at Charles's public life I don't see how you can argue that he's behaved no differently from any other person. And as he himself said, there are no hard and fast rules for how a Prince of Wales should live his public life, so he could have perfectly easily not spent so much time working with his charities and carrying out his duties, but just gone off and played polo, painted pictures, and worked in his garden and done nothing whatever with the Prince's Charities or his environmental and other concerns.
__________________
  #835  
Old 01-04-2009, 11:30 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotAPretender View Post
Have you truly forgotten the incredibly intricate maneuvers required for these two to be joined?
At the time they married, Charles' former wife was dead, and Camilla was divorced. They were both legally free to marry. They only had a problem because of the, in my opinion anachronistic, link between Church and State.
__________________
  #836  
Old 01-04-2009, 11:37 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,236
I think the "intricate maneuvers" were more on the PR side of things.
__________________
  #837  
Old 01-05-2009, 01:52 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
Perhaps it is the animal trainer in me, or perhaps it is that I have a 6 year old who I am trying to teach by example (which in a perfect world I would like the PoW and DoC to be as exemplary as QEII) what is proper/acceptable behavior, but it really makes me furious when bad behavior is rewarded as spectacularly as it has been with the Charles and Camilla situation. Certailny, there are things that I think Charles is to be commended for (the environment, for example, although there too he is guilty of the do as I say not as I do) and things I would think he would enhance (I think the gardens at Highgrove are magnificent and would look forward to his influence in the Monarch's gardens). As far as the whole officer sleeping with a subordinate's wife, the rules forbidding it exist so that there is not a King David, Bathsheba situation where the superior officer can arrange to have the inconvenient husband sent to the front. Regarding your question about the Camillagate tape, my primary objections were Camilla refering to her husband as 'it' and both Camilla and Charles hoping that the ambulance strike of 1989, at it's height during the camillagate tape, which cost the british people E35Million and was then 3 monthes old, should continue so that it would facillitate their affair. APB's Army unit was in charge of substituting for the striking workers, so the strike kept him conveniently occupied far away. I also cannot conceive of any situation where I would allow any friend of mine to use our house as an assignation venue to commit adultery (which was what the bulk of the camillagate call was about). So, there you have it. I hope that this expains a bit to you why these 2 are not on my favorites list.
You were able to answer the question without referring to the tape but... you still haven't explained why you dislike them based on things they did 'before Diana which we only learnt about afterwards' which was one of your claims.

Referring to a husband as 'it' doesn't faze me in the least (any more than a mother referring to looking after her children as 'babysitting').

I have always liked Charles.

When he married Diana in 1981 he seemed to lose his sparkle. It returned around 1986 and it back in full now. For that I thank Camilla and will always see her as eminently more suitable to be his wife as she cares about and for him and that is what he needed and needs in his partner.

I rejoiced when I heard they were getting married, had a celebratory dinner with a few friends to watch the wedding and had other friends send me the papers etc from Britain at the time. It was a day I shall always regard as the day Charles married the woman he should have married all along and he was then, and has been since, so happy.

Has my view changed since the wedding - only with an increased regard for Camilla and deep abiding respect for Charles and pleasure to see him happy in his private life (something that everyone should be entitled to but there are some here who seem to think that having made mistakes in the past then he and Camilla should be condemned to perpetual unhappiness - not an attitude I understand or support).

As a teacher I stronly believe in teaching forgiveness and acceptance of others wrongdoing but the right of everyone to move on towards happiness in their lives. (I might make exceptions for mass murderers and seriel rapists but they are a different story certainly not for adulteres.)
__________________
  #838  
Old 01-05-2009, 02:43 AM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 5,189
Yes, I agree, ysbel. The previous situation, with Camilla being Charles' live-in girlfriend at Clarence House, was ridiculous. They're better off being married.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel View Post
Actually, morally and ethically, I think they did the right thing by marrying. Everything is straightforward and above board now that they're married whereas before it was not. Both being in public positions that are tied to each other requires them to take responsibility for their relationship whereas before when it was just a private relationship, they didn't have to.
__________________
  #839  
Old 01-05-2009, 03:11 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotAPretender View Post
It was the perfect example of that to which I am referring - the endless doctoring of the image, the blundering, the stop-gap measures, the machinations. Have you truly forgotten the incredibly intricate maneuvers required for these two to be joined? .
Just wanted to point out that it was not their own choice or wish to be forced to use these "machinations" but the fact that they live in a world where their life is influenced by other people. By people who believe for their own reasons that they were unjustifiedly "rewarded" through their marriage, by people who because of their own religious/moral opinions think it wasn't right for them to do what any other couple was allowed to.

From the moment of his birth Charles has had to live with restrictions posed on him and only on him by other people. These restrictions have made a lot of things impossible for him, even though they are absolutely possible for people like you and me. So despite his restrictions he managed to have a relationship with the woman he loved and managed to make this woman his wife. Okay, he had to go some rather unpleasant ways to end up there but under the circumstances he acted in a way I can understand.
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
  #840  
Old 01-05-2009, 03:16 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post

Referring to a husband as 'it' doesn't faze me in the least (any more than a mother referring to looking after her children as 'babysitting').
It was I think James Whittaker who actually made this "it" famous on saying they referred to APB here. In all following sentences they talk about "him", so why should they do it differently here? I think it's a fault of the transcripting process.

But there is another explanation for the "it" - sometimes people have a nickname for anothe rperson which refers to a "thing" or "animal" rather than a person and use the "it" on refering to that nickname. But in that case they would have gone on using the "it" and not switch to "he". Thus I think it wasn't said that way.
__________________

__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
Closed Thread

Tags
camilla, duchess of cornwall, prince charles, prince of wales, relationships, royal duties


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
Charles and Camilla: Visit to Portugal - 28-30 March 2011 Princess Agnes The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 45 04-06-2011 07:24 PM
Charles and Camilla current events 9: Feb-March 2006 Elspeth Current Events Archive 203 03-08-2006 12:30 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene crown prince felipe crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta elena infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympics ottoman poland pom president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess of asturias queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:28 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]