Charles and Camilla: The Marriage (2005 and on)

[royal rob]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

By the time they are living in BP, Camilla's grandchildren, probably will not be racing up and down halls.

Let's hope so


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

By the time they are living in BP, Camilla's grandchildren, probably will not be racing up and down halls.

It is very possible that one of Camilla's granddaughters has already had the joy of running in BP's halls (maybe even with a playmate called Harry). As fact, one of Camilla's granddaughters, Eliza Lopes, (Laura Parker-Bowles Lopes' daughter) has even been on the balcony at BP. She was three years old at the time and a member of William and Kate's bridal party.

From what I've read, Camilla's children and Charles' children get along pretty well. There was an article with an interview with Tom Parker-Bowles a while back where he says that they've always called Charles "Sir" but as time went on, it became more of a affectionate term as "Uncle" would be rather than stiff and formal. I believe if you scan back in the thread dedicated to Camilla's family, you can find that article.

[royal rob]

Originally Posted by Queen Camilla

Richard Kay and Geoffrey Levy strike again.

The headline is states how Camilla keeps Charles happy but there are 28 mentions of Charles' ex-wife with of course her picture.

All the so called sources are unnamed.

You counted them ?


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[scooter]

Originally Posted by royal rob

You counted them ?


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

This surprises you? There are a lot of people here counting quite a few things!

[royal rob]

Yes finding that out. 💐


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[MARG]

Originally Posted by Queen Camilla

Richard Kay and Geoffrey Levy strike again.

The headline is states how Camilla keeps Charles happy but there are 28 mentions of Charles' ex-wife with of course her picture.

All the so called sources are unnamed.

You bet your booties baby! That's how people keep up with the play! After all, it is not unreasonable to expect that Charles ex wife who died 17 odd years ago would not be getting top billing in an article entitled;

Separate lives and a rather saucy secret: An intimate portrait of their marriage reveals how Camilla has kept Charles happy

Read more: How Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall has kept Prince Charles happy | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Ricky and Geoffy will have to do much better than that. Next we'll be counting the number of cut-and-pastes from their previous posts.

[hernameispekka]

Originally Posted by MARG

You bet your booties baby! That's how people keep up with the play! After all, it is not unreasonable to expect that Charle ex wife who died 17 odd years ago would not be getting top billing in an article entitled;

Separate lives and a rather saucy secret: An intimate portrait of their marriage reveals how Camilla has kept Charles happy

Read more: How Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall has kept Prince Charles happy | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Ricky and Geoffy will have to do much better than that. Next we'll be counting the number of cut-and-pastes from their previous posts.

I understand the counting. I can promise you the person didn't count from the beginning, but after reading the article for a while and seeing a name (not related to the article) pop up time and again you might think to yourself "God, they are mentioning Diana more than Camillia) and that start you counting. It's probably not a hobby

[Dman]

You can't talk about Charles and Camilla without bringing up Diana. Those were and are the two most famous and important women in his life.

[hernameispekka]

Originally Posted by Dman

You can't talk about Charles and Camilla without bringing up Diana. Those were and are the two most famous and important women in his life.

Yeah, I know. I just said that I understand the counting since it's a little odd the dead ex-wives name being named more times than the current wife when the article is about the current wife.

[US Royal Watcher]

Originally Posted by Dman

You can't talk about Charles and Camilla without bringing up Diana. Those were and are the two most famous and important women in his life.

I think most people can talk about Charles and Camilla's marriage without bringing up either of their ex-spouses. They have been married for many years and there are many aspects of their lives that have nothing to do with their ex-spouses.

[AdmirerUS]

Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher

I think most people can talk about Charles and Camilla's marriage without bringing up either of their ex-spouses. They have been married for many years and there are many aspects of their lives that have nothing to do with their ex-spouses.

Well, I think the general population does not think about C and C.

But of the many that bother to comment here, most of us have problems not bringing up off topic comparisons. We do it all over the place, not just on C & C threads.

[Dman]

Originally Posted by hernameispekka

Yeah, I know. I just said that I understand the counting since it's a little odd the dead ex-wives name being named more times than the current wife when the article is about the current wife.

Yeah, I really don't bother counting stuff like that. I find it irrelevant. The late ex-wife will be forever be part of their current marriage. I just don't like how the media make it seem like she's the big and bad ghost that hangs over them. The memory is there, but no longer in a bad way, IMO.

[hernameispekka]

Originally Posted by Dman

Yeah, I really don't bother counting stuff like that. I find it irrelevant. The late ex-wife will be forever be part of their current marriage. I just don't like how the media make it seem like she's the big and bad ghost that hangs over them. The memory is there, but no longer in a bad way, IMO.

Me neither. Just understand the "huh, seriously, how many times can they put Diana in an article about Camilla?" :P

[Dman]

Originally Posted by hernameispekka

Me neither. Just understand the "huh, seriously, how many times can they put Diana in an article about Camilla?" :P

LOL, that's her history.

[ladongas]

Originally Posted by Dman

You can't talk about Charles and Camilla without bringing up Diana. Those were and are the two most famous and important women in his life.

Don't let HM hear this!

[Dman]

Originally Posted by ladongas

Don't let HM hear this!

Lol, I did mean intimately.

[Duc_et_Pair]

It is the corporate model of the Daily Mail: the more clicks on their site, the more unique IP's visiting them, the more revenue the newspaper generates. So every juicy story, every miraculous diet to slim into a supermodel in two weeks, every case of adultery amongst celebrities, every rant againts "scroungers", thick fat headlines, even about fungus on the Prince's nail: it does not matter. Just click, click, click and the Daily Mail thanks you. That is the sole reason for milking old cows again and again.

[MARG]

Originally Posted by Dman

You can't talk about Charles and Camilla without bringing up Diana. Those were and are the two most famous and important women in his life.

And that is why this thread is not a "History" thread, but one that is specifically titled "Charles and Camilla:The Marriage(2005 and on)", just so that people can keep on topic.

As hernameispekka has pointed out, "how many times can they put Diana in an article about Camilla". Had she still been alive it could perhaps have been relevant. But as things stand, it is not.

[royal rob]

So your comment about counting to keep up with "the state of play" means who has more coverage ???


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[Lady Nimue]

Originally Posted by royal rob

So your comment about counting to keep up with "the state of play" means who has more coverage ???

I would say it's more about how it's still all about Diana. In certain journalistic quarters. That's the 'state of play'. When I read that article it was clear I was reading dog-whistle journalism. Counting how many times Diana was mentioned is simply a way of supporting the contention that what was being engaged was pot-stirring. The mentioning of Diana was very much ott. I can understand counting the number of times in an article that was supposedly detailing something else (equally pot-stirring).