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

[No1_Saint]

I like them. I think that they make a good team and have worked hard at their respective roles.

In regards to the Duchess taking the title of Queen, I think that the there will be more than enough time before Charles ascends to the throne for people to move on sufficiently for that to take place.

I think (or perhaps hope) that people will be pragmatic enough to accept them in their new roles.

 

[scooter]

Well Marg, I try to explain, but the relative portions of my post get deleted as 'gratuitous introduction of material that has no relevance to the topic at hand', so I'm not sure how to explain what and why without it being deleted. I am sure that you are as frustrated by my 'not explaining' as I am by my not being allowed to explain. Believe me, I have tried (see #809 above).

 

[Iluvbertie]

Well Marg, I try to explain, but the relative portions of my post get deleted as 'gratuitous introduction of material that has no relevance to the topic at hand', so I'm not sure how to explain what and why without it being deleted. I am sure that you are as frustrated by my 'not explaining' as I am by my not being allowed to explain.

From my reading of the discussion there is a problem with your comments.


You say you don't like Camilla because of events BEFORE Diana came on the scene, which I interpret at being before late 1980, when everyone started to become aware of her in Charles' life.

Then you use the Camillagate tape to justify your dislike of Camilla dating from before Diana i.e. before late 1980. However the Camillagate tape was done after the publication of the Morton Book in 1992.

People are wanting to know why you say you dislike Camilla because of things she did before 1980.

Using a tape made in 1992 isn't answering that question at all and in fact is irrelevant to the question you have been asked to answer.

Remember that Camilla didn't get much of a mention in the 1970s as a companion of Charles and most of what we know has come out after Diana told her story to Andrew Morton. In other words the general public didn't know she existed before Diana so please explain why, things she did before Diana, have made you dislike her by giving examples of what she did then.

We know she liked Charles, she married Andrew, she remained friends with Charles, she gave him advice on suitable brides.... Which of these things makes you dislike her? A good friend will often give advice about the suitability of a friend's future partner - so nothing wrong there. Remaining friends with a former boyfriend - not a problem. Having an affair with a single man - not really a good thing except that it seems that both Andrew and she had a marriage where total faithfulness wasn't seen as necessary - if anyone should be having a problem with her having that affair it should have been Andrew and if he didn't then no-one else should.

What else did she do BEFORE Diana? That is what you have been asked time and again and have refused to answer.

 

[scooter]

Warren, it is very frustrating to me when I am directly asked 'why dont I like Camilla and Charles' that I am not allowed to answer the question. Here...I'll give you another example of why I dont like them (different from the last few deleted).and perhaps Skydragon can answer since she has a broad knowledge of the armed forces in Britain. Here in the US, if a Colonel of a regiment (for example) is found to be having a sexual relationship with the spouse of an officer subordinate to 'The Colonel' the senior officer would be brought before a Court Martial, and, if found to be in fact having said sexual relationship, the senior officer will be dishonorably discharged from the military. Does Britain not have a regulation in the armed services covering this situation? Is a superior officer allowed to have a sexual relationship with a junior (to the Colonel) officer's spouse?

Jo...I have on many previous threads cited many published sources that CPB in fact hand picked 'The Bride'. I have used up my 5 minutes of 'scooter time' tonight. I must go back to deal with MIL's issues, who is now in Cardiac Unit (bloodthinnners, pacemaker, clotting pre surgery). I will look up the sources to back up what I have posted tomorrow or the day after. Please be patient and I will dig out the quotes later in the week. Cheers.


ETA: I would like to add that I consider all of you here at TRF to be friends, even if we have different opinions. Even Skydragon who has as radically different an opinion from mine regarding Charles and Camilla is a fellow Horse Person, and as such I consider her to be 'one of the scooter people'.. Whether she wants to be or not! ;-)

 

[Iluvbertie]

I don't understand why you can't say why you dislike Camilla and Charles without quoting the tape.

Is it because they had an affair? Or is it because you believe that Charles always loved Camilla and never loved Diana? Or because you believe that Camilla never stayed out of the marriage? Or what?

Surely you can say it in someway without quoting the tape at all - what exactly is it?

It seems to me simply the fact that they had an affair that they tried to keep secret and like many other people in affairs made disparaging remarks about their spouses in a conversation overheard by an illegally taped conversation. Is their more to it than that?

 

[MARG]

. . . . . . . . Is a superior officer allowed to have a sexual relationship with a junior (to the Colonel) officer's spouse?

Context please scooter, it's a little too abstract for me.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Context please scooter, it's a little too abstract for me.

Scooter is referring, I believe, to the fact that Charles held (and may still hold) the rank of Colonel in Andrew Parker-Bowles regiment and is thus asking whether in Britain wasn't Charles sleeping with Camilla a Court-Martial offense?

In other words could Charles (or even should Charles have been courtmartielled for having an affair with Camilla)?

I doubt if anyone would have considered courtmartialling Charles as it wasn't an active position (he didn't serve on a day-to-day basis). His rank is Honorary I think, with regard to that particular regiment.

 

[Skydragon]

Here in the US, if a Colonel of a regiment (for example) is found to be having a sexual relationship with the spouse of an officer subordinate to 'The Colonel' the senior officer would be brought before a Court Martial, and, if found to be in fact having said sexual relationship, the senior officer will be dishonorably discharged from the military. Does Britain not have a regulation in the armed services covering this situation? Is a superior officer allowed to have a sexual relationship with a junior (to the Colonel) officer's spouse?

In the UK the Junior of the officer and his spouse would be moved to a base away from the Senior Officer, (this applies to all the services and regiments) but only if the junior was not involved elsewhere himself and was kicking up.

Now if it had been the wife of or an ordinary serviceman/woman having the affair with an officer, that is considered a heinous crime. The officer would not have been dismissed but may have been spoken to by his superior. Courts Martial for affairs are very few and far between.

Even Skydragon who has as radically different an opinion from mine regarding Charles and Camilla is a fellow Horse Person, and as such I consider her to be 'one of the scooter people'.. Whether she wants to be or not! ;-)

Yes I think apart from our differences on Charles and Camilla, you too are an 'OK' person.

 

[Menarue]

Any one who loves horses is an ok person.

I have witnessed a few of these above mentioned affairs and most of them unless they became too blatant were just ignored, except for the inevitable gossip when the other officers´ wives had their afternoon teas.
Punishment, a good dressing down usually did it. But fraternising with the other ranks was considered a serious breach in discipline.

 

[wbenson]

Scooter is referring, I believe, to the fact that Charles held (and may still hold) the rank of Colonel in Andrew Parker-Bowles regiment and is thus asking whether in Britain wasn't Charles sleeping with Camilla a Court-Martial offense?

Charles was never the colonel of the Blues and Royals, nor was he the Colonel-in-Chief of the Royal Army Veterinary Corps.

 

[Iluvbertie]

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.

 

[scooter]

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.

 

[sirhon11234]

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.

 

[COUNTESS]

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.

 

[scooter]

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.

 

[COUNTESS]

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.

 

[Mermaid1962]

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.

 

[ysbel]

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.

 

[scooter]

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.

 

[NotAPretender]

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....

 

[wbenson]

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...

 

[wbenson]

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.

 

[NotAPretender]

Oh, heavens!

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.

 

[Elspeth]

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.

 

[Roslyn]

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.

 

[wbenson]

I think the "intricate maneuvers" were more on the PR side of things.

 

[Iluvbertie]

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.)

 

[Mermaid1962]

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.

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.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

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.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

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.