The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #61  
Old 09-01-2007, 11:50 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
We seem to be straying from the topic into the dangerous waters of the Charles-Camilla-Diana triangle again.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 09-01-2007, 11:55 PM
Polly's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Mebourne, Australia
Posts: 656
One might have thought, Elspeth, that with a topic such as 'the marriage',that this may well have been inevitable? Not to worry, I'll go away.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 09-02-2007, 01:04 AM
NotAPretender's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: WPB FL/Muttontown NY, United States
Posts: 853
The entire situation could have been avoided had Charles been permitted to marry Camilla much earlier. But he wasn't, and he lacked the spine in those days to press his desires. I contrast him to the last Tsar of Russia, who in spite of being considered weak, simply refused to give up his intended and life-long love, Alix of Hesse. One can say "well, good Lord, look how that ended!" but in fact, their love and devotion in spite of their incredibly ineptitude in ruling is unquestioned. One might also compare Norway's royal family. The current King, Harald V, waited through nine years of dating Sonja Haraldsen before becoming engaged to her, willing to wait out whatever time was necessary.

So Charles didn't marry her then, didn't wait out opposition, did not proffer a counter, and as a result and nearly three decades later, two families were torn apart.

Oh, I know, a certain faction will say that if Diana had just not made a "big deal" about his mistress, then the marriages would not have ended. Well, she had the right to expect him to live up to vows that he made in front of a Vicar of Christ and a phenomenal world-wide audience. He ended their marriage the first time he had sexual intercourse outside of their marriage. Diana's affairs thereafter were after the vows had been broken.

The thread asks if not Camilla, then was the choice of Diana as a wife, a moot point: whether any marriage to anyone not Camilla was doomed to end badly, even if not in divorce. I say yes. Charles, while not strong enough to stand up and take her as his bride in earlier days, was equally not strong enough to completely cut ties with Mrs. Parker Bowles, to the detriment of her life with her husband. Had he had a shred of respect for APB, he would not have clung to the wife of APB with such an iron grip, whenever the sexual aspect of the relationship resumed.

I don't think anyone else mattered to Charles except Charles. Camilla was necessary for Charles To Survive, and thus he smothered her marriage to APB in its toddlerhood, and any marriage to any other woman in its infancy.

Charles bears all responsibilty in the byzantine tragedy that has resulted, and Charles alone. The women in this situation - Diana and Camilla, primarily, but the Queen and Queen Mother as well - are like cyphers, archetypes, or cards in a playing deck, for all that he cared about them as individuals. Each of them, in his estimation, existed solely for the role that they played in his life, for him.

So my final analysis in this matter is that in fact, it didn't matter who Charles married once he was denied initial marriage to Camilla. The fact that he has married her now impresses me very little. The fact that he carried on a 30-year affair with her after she was married suggests to me that some DNA testing is required and not on Harry of Wales, either; if this is the love story across decades, then let's call it like it is.

No, no woman matters to Charles except as it pertains to her usefulness to Charles. That is not to say that he does not believe himself to feel love for Camilla, nor that I believe that he did not feel love for Diana.

So, in light of that assertion, then I believe any marriage between Charles and anyone not Charles (and who did not buy into the idea that existing for Charles was Everything and All) was doomed. Smothered, as I said earlier on, in its infancy.
__________________
"Me, your Highness? On the whole, I wish I'd stayed in Tunbridge Wells"
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 09-02-2007, 02:09 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,237
Perhaps Charles should just take to roaming the streets while scourging himself with chains and demanding that people stone him publicly.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 09-02-2007, 02:43 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
Perhaps Charles should just take to roaming the streets while scourging himself with chains and demanding that people stone him publicly.
For some people even that wouldn't be enough!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 09-02-2007, 02:50 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polly View Post
One might have thought, Elspeth, that with a topic such as 'the marriage',that this may well have been inevitable? Not to worry, I'll go away.
Well, it sort of depends what VuMom had in mind when asking the question. I think she's asking whether Charles and Camilla would have married earlier if there hadn't been a requirement for him to marry someone like Diana (if he married at all). I think it's really hard to say, because he was in the Navy and she, by all accounts, was in a serious relationship with Andrew Parker Bowles and didn't have ambitions to be a royal wife (although she did appear to have ambitions to be a royal mistress if it's true that her first words to Charles were an invitation to repeat history!). The trouble is that there was this requirement for Charles to marry a sweet young daughter of the top drawer of the aristocracy, and he knew it, and everybody else knew it, and that coloured what happened in reality.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 09-02-2007, 03:55 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 589
I think both the styles of Lord Mountbatten and Prince Philips towards their wives have shaped Prince Charles's attitudes towards women. Women are delightful creatures and he can appreciate their wisdoms and strengths in different aspects. But for him his wife still has to walk in his shadow and play a role of a supporting wife, a fun companion, a sympathic ear, and a digified and dutiful consort. Diana does not suit Charles exactly that she was looking for her own identity and her own position more that Charle's wife, and I don't think Camilla want to be more Charles's lawful wife.

Charles is a man who brought up under the idea of traditional male dominated family style and so does Camilla. She can always let Charles play the domance role despite Camilla is the tougher one of the two. From what I read, both Diana's mother and her stepmother dominated her father and I assume that Diana was not used to the very male dominated family. I don't think Charles has a very strong character but he would want to be the leader of his householder as well as the husband-wife team. Camilla is always willing to play the second but I doubt Diana can ever do that. Camilla strikes me as a very domestic person and certainly she can let Charles play a more public role while she support him behind the scenes.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 09-02-2007, 04:34 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polly View Post
Well, from my certain knowledge, the Spencers were already close to the throne. Indeed, like many aristocrats in the UK, they thought themselves somewhat superior to the throne and its family, as, indeed, in an historical sense they were.
ah, again this disregard for the female line and inheritance through a grandmother, not a grandfather....

But I write it again. Elizabeth Stuart, daughter of James VI./I., born a princess of Scotland and becoming a princess of England after her father inherited the English crown from Elizabeth I., was queen of Bohemia and the mother of the electress Sophia and grandmother of George I. George's father, prince elector of Hannover, was the Head of the oldest European Royal family, the Welfs - they can prove that they ruled since the 800s as independent rules somewhere (not only Hannover, but Bavaria, Saxony , Bohemia, as Guelfs in Italy etc.)

So where is the "historical sense" that the Spencers were ever superior to that august ancestry?
__________________
'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.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 09-02-2007, 05:21 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
The entire situation could have been avoided had Charles been permitted to marry Camilla much earlier. But he wasn't, and he lacked the spine in those days to press his desires.
I don't think Charles wanted to marry Camilla at all when he was young. There are different kinds of love and friendship and I don't believe that Charles was interested in Camilla then as a woman, rather in her as a friend. Charles in these years wanted to have fun, he was finally free of his father's ideas of education, was beyond his cadet years in the military and had just taken over the management of his duchy. No need to set up his nursery yet, his mother was still young and he had two brothers and a sister.

He was enjoying his life and Camilla as well as some other ladies and their husbands obviously were the right companions at this stage of his life. There surely was a deep affection for Camilla, but love? I doubt it. I doubt that he had an idea whatever love means. I doubt he had an idea whatever being "in love" means. He had an idea, of course, what duty he owned his country and that one day marriage would be inevitable.

Which didn't probably soun too bad: the marriages he saw around him were rather comfortably allowing the partners a kind of personal freedom about work and life while sharing common interests and family.

Charles really was a man of the 50ties and 60ties. As were his firends. How could he understand the change in the way women thought from the 70ties onwards?

Diana wanted it all and Charles was not able to give her what she wanted. So it began... Charles was disappointed and his friends were there to comfort him, as they as well were unable to understand Diana. Add Diana's mood swings and you get the cocktail that led to the seperation and divorce.

I doubt Charles and Camilla wanted to marry at all. As long as Diana was alive, this would have been impossible, IMHO. But Charles wanted Camilla more and more by his side and as this turned out to be difficult according to protocoll, and Diana was dead, the idea of marriage came up. Then Charles started to fight for an equal marriage. I doubt he and Camilla have problems with the Duchess of Cornwall-title as long as Camilla is HRH.

I doubt Camilla wants the Royal attributes, but both she and Charles want to be able to attend the same events, use the same car, sleep in the same bed and simply be together and live together openly. Maybe Camilla's health played a role in this - maybe (but that's mere speculation) they realised how short life can be and how much they want to be together and not seperated due to protocoll.

As long as Camilla is Charles' wife and can live openly with him, it doesn't matter to her if she will be queen or princess consort. She will have the position as the First Lady, no matter what her title.

I for one am glad they managed to get their wish and can live as husband and wife in public and private. As for Diana: may she rest in peace.
__________________
'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.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 09-02-2007, 05:24 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
The fact that he carried on a 30-year affair with her after she was married suggests to me that some DNA testing is required and not on Harry of Wales, either; if this is the love story across decades, then let's call it like it is.
Well, if Charles ever creates Tom Parker Bowles a duke with the family name of "Fitzroy", we'll know....
__________________
'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.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 09-02-2007, 08:17 AM
CasiraghiTrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burbank, United States
Posts: 6,402
Ah, well, both of Camilla's children look a great deal like her but also like their legal father. And as for William and Harry, they too look too much like both Windsor and Spencer to have Shand blood.... And of course Diana certainly gave birth to them.
__________________
Chewsteraghi on Tumblr. Schmichaelira on Twitter. Tumblr aka obsessivechewsteraghidisorder. Be warned: I'm weird.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 09-02-2007, 08:40 AM
hornsen's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 535
There are much rumours about Tom and Laura. I´ve no doubt about their father, too. But what is trying to hide: Tom´s third name is Charles...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 09-02-2007, 08:45 AM
CasiraghiTrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burbank, United States
Posts: 6,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by hornsen View Post
There are much rumours about Tom and Laura. I´ve no doubt about their father, too. But what is trying to hide: Tom´s third name is Charles...
I can see the joke but all the same, Tom really looks a lot like both his parents and nothing at all like Charles. I think in any case that the issue was addressed in the media a long time ago and it was concluded that the time of Tom's conception, Charles was on a tour of duty in the navy!
__________________
Chewsteraghi on Tumblr. Schmichaelira on Twitter. Tumblr aka obsessivechewsteraghidisorder. Be warned: I'm weird.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 09-02-2007, 09:48 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by hornsen View Post
There are much rumours about Tom and Laura. I´ve no doubt about their father, too. But what is trying to hide: Tom´s third name is Charles...
Charles is his godfather and was a friend of both Tom's parents so why not name their son after a good friend whom they regarded well enough to put into the position of godfather to their beloved son.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 09-02-2007, 05:39 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post
Well, if Charles ever creates Tom Parker Bowles a duke with the family name of "Fitzroy", we'll know....
Wouldn't that be a hoot...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 09-02-2007, 06:24 PM
georgiea's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A, United States
Posts: 1,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
Wouldn't that be a hoot...
Yes, it would be funny. I have thought about Tom middle name and that he was godson of Charles and wonder about his birthright. Charles gave a lot of money to Tom and Laura after he married Camilla. I also wonder about that.
__________________
Watch your actions, for they become your habits. Watch your habits because they become your character. Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 09-02-2007, 07:08 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Charles set-up trust funds for Tom and Laura before he married Camilla. This was likely done to ensure they would not have a claim on the royal estate for support of any kind in the future once Camilla and he married.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 09-02-2007, 08:05 PM
Al_bina's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 5,648
Prince Charles’ grown-up stepchildren are not capable of earning their living?! Have the children of Duchess of Cornwall got any legal grounds to claim financial support from the British Royal Family?
__________________
"I never did mind about the little things" Amanda, "Point of No Return"
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 09-02-2007, 08:11 PM
Duchess's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: xx, Canada
Posts: 1,648
i believe that charles suffered (for lack of a better term) of a form of the madonna/whore syndrome. he needed a wife a that was virginal, aristocratic, would do fulfill her role as POW and never say boo but he wanted a mistress that would fulfill his needs and desires. this whole scenario was encouraged by mountbatten.
__________________
Duchess
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 09-03-2007, 01:36 AM
cde cde is offline
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Marina del rey, United States
Posts: 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al_bina View Post
Prince Charles’ grown-up stepchildren are not capable of earning their living?! Have the children of Duchess of Cornwall got any legal grounds to claim financial support from the British Royal Family?
The 1 million pound trust funds that Charles gave Tom and Laura are rumor only, not fact. IIRC CH denied it. Tom in an interview has also denied the trust funds. IMO Tom is a pretty forthright type of guy.He seems to take advantage of his book interviews to set the record straight on things that have appeared and aren't true. Maybe Charles did give them trust funds but I don't think Tom would have made such a point of denying them.

Tom is a food writer for the Daily Mail/ Tatler and now is on a show called Market Kitchen. (Has anyone seen the show?) He has also written two books on food. In addition, He has an interest in Quintessentially( it's lifestyle management company)

Laura runs a an art gallery named Eleven. She married well. Her husband Harry Lopes will inherit Gnaton Hall in Devon.

Why would Tom and Laura make claims for financial support from the RF?
Overall they have been well behaved. They aren't desperate for money and Camilla is wealthy in her right now due to Charles, I am sure Camilla or Andrew would help them if the situation arose.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
camilla, duchess of cornwall, marriage, prince charles, prince of wales


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





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 duchess of cambridge dutch royal history engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg 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 olympic games ottoman picture of the month pom 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 letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess marilene princess mary queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:34 AM.

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]