Charles and Camilla: The Marriage (2005 and on)

[Charlotte1]

I give APB the most credit of ALL the players in this drama; he has behaved impeccably throughout, IMHO.

If cheating repeatedly on your fiancee and then wife throughout your marriage is behaving impeccably then Andrew Parker Bowles did. However I don't agree!
APB had a long term relationship with Rosemary Pitman whom he married just after his divorce from Camilla was finalised. He was no 'wronged man' as he had various affairs during his married life with Camilla, it says a lot that they are both on such friendly terms. One of the justifications often given for Diana cheating was 'well her husband cheated so that drove her to it. Even if the man in question was married" The same can be applied to Camilla, her husband cheated and so she was driven into the arms of another man even if he was married. (Not much difference between the 2 woman at all!)

Neither monarchs nor consorts are American politicians, their private lives don't bar them from their jobs. Edward VII had muliple affairs, Edward VIII had relationships with married women. King Albert of Belgium had affairs and fathered an illegitimate child. Queen Paola had affairs. King Juan Carlos had a long term mistress, even the 'happily married' King Carl Gustav cheated. Prince Bernhard fathered 2 illegitimate daughters and had countless affairs and yet he was still the Prince Consort to his wife.

What's important now that Charles and Camilla have found happiness in their 'mature years' and time moves on.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Well politicians private lives didn't because public business until Bill Clinton. Because our past presidents have been cheaters and womanizers just like the English.

 

[Aliza]

If cheating repeatedly on your fiancee and then wife throughout your marriage is behaving impeccably then Andrew Parker Bowles did. However I don't agree!...

I was referring to APB's public behaviour, not his private affairs, although I do understand that I should have made that distinction when I made the original post.

 

[olebabs]

I just sincerly hope they will last, because I don't think he or she could survive another scandal.

It would be interesting to hear from Camilla herself though about the whole thing.

 

[scooter]

Really? I think Charles is the ultimate survivor. There could be a tsunami in England and you would find Charles at the top of London bridge wearing the crown jewels afterward.

 

[Daria_S]

Really? I think Charles is the ultimate survivor. There could be a tsunami in England and you would find Charles at the top of London bridge wearing the crown jewels afterward.

That provided a very interesting mental image.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I just sincerly hope they will last, because I don't think he or she could survive another scandal.

It would be interesting to hear from Camilla herself though about the whole thing.

That is something that we won't hear as she believes very strongly that you don't wash the dirty linen in public.

 

[Osipi]

That is something that we won't hear as she believes very strongly that you don't wash the dirty linen in public.

In that respect she reminds me so much of QEQM. As Duchess of York, she supported her Bertie no matter what his problems or shortcomings were and they remained an united front together through thick and thin. Since the marriage of Charles and Camilla, she's doing in public for Charles and people are starting to see that and respect her for it.

She is also smart enough to know that their personal intimacies through the years is just that.. personal and no one else's business. She may write her memoirs in years to come but I'll bet my last doughnut that it would be done with taste and discretion. Its who she is.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I don't know if she will ever write a book, both her and her ex husband seem to prefer to leave private things private. One of the reasons Cam was so vilified is because we didn't hear her side of the story; but if she went through the early 90s, the book, and "the tapes" and didn't talk; I don't think she ever will.

 

[Kataryn]

I don't know if she will ever write a book, both her and her ex husband seem to prefer to leave private things private. One of the reasons Cam was so vilified is because we didn't hear her side of the story; but if she went through the early 90s, the book, and "the tapes" and didn't talk; I don't think she ever will.

I have the feeling that we won't learn more than what has already be told via the Dimbleby-book. Surely Charles will want to leave his diaries for future generations (he is a historian after all) but I don't think they will be available till some years if not decades after his death. I'm not sure Camilla is writing a diary as well and if so, I don't think she will make them public even after her death but have them probably added to the Royal archives.

Perhaps they will in due time (long into their own reign as king and Queen) allow people close to them to write about them just like the queen during these last years has allowed trusted authors or her family to publish books including private material but in case of Camilla and Charles I doubt even then much will be included that sheds some light on the D-C-C-triangle.

 

[muriel]

My own view is that some things are best left in private, and I really do not want to know any more about the private lives of the royal family than I already do. I think it is commendable that Camilla has never tried to out forward her story, and long may that remain. Perhaps Charles could learn a thing or two from his wife in this regard.

 

[Mirabel]

ITA!
Wasn't it Napoleon who said: Never apologize, never explain!??

 

[scooter]

Perhaps they will in due time (long into their own reign as king and Queen) allow people close to them to write about them just like the queen during these last years has allowed trusted authors or her family to publish books including private material but in case of Camilla and Charles I doubt even then much will be included that sheds some light on the D-C-C-triangle.

Not if that turgid 5 lb doorstop known as the Shawcross Authorised Biography of QEQM is anything to go by. That was the most purgatorially slow biography/travelog/ fashion retrospective ever written. "And then Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth travelled to Australia where she wore a yellow and white chiffon gown by Norman Hartnell when she met Prime Minister X at the ABC reception, where the weather was sunny". A glancing bypass to Wallis/David and exactly a one sentance mention of Camilla as 'APB's wife' . But lots about clothes and who she met. All 5 lbs of it. It could have been called the dresser's diary, because that's about what it was.

 

[Zonk]

We don't need to get way OFF topic with the Shawcross book, but I think its fair to say that a lot of people feel that not every topic was discussed and what was discussed was whitewashed by either making light of it or just glossing over events. Which is a somewhat fair statement I believe for a woman who has lived an eventful 100 years!

Tying it back to the topic of Charles and Camilla, I believe you will most likely (maybe not in our lifetimes depending on your age ) see another authorized biography on Charles that might shed some light on the relationship and marriage of Charles and Camilla. But probably not much light.

I also can't imagine Camilla speaking on her own, and authorizing people to speak on her behalf. To my knowledge she has never spoken publicly about her relationship and/or marriage to Charles.

Its not her style. I can't see her changing it now.

 

[scooter]

Not publicly, but she had a regular chat with the Editor in Chief at the Sun "to get Charles' side out"...so not quite as silent as the grave regarding the relationship.

 

[Zonk]

I am going to kick myself for asking, but what is your source Scooter?

 

[muriel]

Not publicly, but she had a regular chat with the Editor in Chief at the Sun "to get Charles' side out"...so not quite as silent as the grave regarding the relationship.

I am going to kick myself for asking, but what is your source Scooter?

Zonk, you are far too polite.

Scooter, Do you have any basis for your potentially slanderous accusations, or is this another of your attempts to generally vent about people you do not like?

 

[Kataryn]

Normally I am not in the habit of second Scooter on being myself a huge Camilla & Charles-fan but I had heard about that as well, so I checked the web.

That's what I found:
Diana reassessed: Part Two | Mail Online

"For years Camilla had secret --off-the-record telephone conversations with the editor of the Sun newspaper, Stuart Higgins - a curious relationship which illustrated the web of understanding and complicity in the circle around Charles.
'I didn't sense that she and the Prince were out of touch,' Higgins recalled. ' I talked to her once a week about Diana and Charles. She guided me on things that were not true or things that were off the beam.'
He would run stories past her as a check and he could hear her, hand half- cupped over the receiver, repeating them to her husband. ' Guess what they're saying about us now, Andrew,' she would call out, and even the tabloid editor was astonished by their openness about her affair with Charles."


When I googled Stuart Higgins I found that he is a journalist of the pro-Camilla camp who has known her ever since he started reporting about the society life of the country set of the West Countries which was even prior to Charles' marriage to Diana. Higgins even won the Scoop of the Year category for l995 in the UKPG awards for a story about Charles' plans to divorce Diana.



But all that was during the War of the Waleses and while Mr. Higgins wrote the foreword on a biography of Camilla, there is no current information about Camilla, now HRH, still talking to him or other journalists. It can be assumed from the lack of personal insights into Camilla's thoughts that she is no longer giving out information other than publishing her speeches via the POW-website.



Hope this helps.

 

[muriel]

With due respect, depsite the quotes coming from a book on Diana, there really does not appear to be any proof that any of this actually happened. It just does not appear to be in character. Also, once you start feedign the Press, how can you ever turn it off?

 

[Charlotte1]

With due respect, depsite the quotes coming from a book on Diana, there really does not appear to be any proof that any of this actually happened. It just does not appear to be in character. Also, once you start feedign the Press, how can you ever turn it off?

Stuart Higgins has confirmed that he used to telephone Camilla to get her to confirm or deny stories. At the time he was The Sun royal correspondent and not the Editor. He had met Camilla before Charles and Diana married when he was a young reporter on a local newspaper near where Camilla lived and he struck up an aquaintance. He never said Camilla fed him stories, just that he rang her. The contact lasted from 1982 to 1992, guessing I would say that the Morton book broke off the contact.

To say that Camilla would feed the press information is a distortion but for 10 years she was used as a confirm or deny source.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

Has Camilla confirmed this? Unless she has, well...

 

[Kataryn]

On thinking about it I can just imagine that she had used her old connection to Higgins in a way like other friends/relatives do it: acting with permission in order to have a bit of an influence that the most outrageous articles are not printed. I know some journalists have such an agreement with their "sources" and this works well as long as the rules are obeyed to by the media.

Sarah Ferguson was the first to break such an agreement when she as a Royal not orchestrated her press relations through "sources" but gave herself an interview for which she took money and then lied about her being pregnant with Beatrice. And look where that brought her with the media!

Camilla could have well been involved with such an arrangement as long as she was just a "source" and did it to help and protect Charles. There are hints that she has helped Charles as well with the "lady on the Royal train" when she might have hosted Diana that night. And I think we have gotten a good idea in the meantime just what kind of loyal friend, lover and protector she is for Charles.

But once she was accused by Diana to be the marriage wrecker, or even once she had formed a "special relationship" with Charles ( around 1986 obviously ) she of course would have stopped and retired to the silent background. If only to save Charles and his reputation and to protect herself. For from that moment onwards, she was not longer a "source" to check news but the news herself.

So I highly doubt that she ever was "open about her affair" with anyone from the media. That's just not her style, IMHO, just like others have expressed their similar view. She is neither that stup nor needs the media for her own self-evaluation. IMHO all she needs is Charles and her family and she would without problems go with Charles into exile, if he wanted it. She is a formidable and loving lady and I admire her for alot, especially her kindness.

 

[Queen Camilla]

I believe Charles was aware when he met Camilla that he was to have an arranged marriage with Amanda Knatchbull. (His mother, father and Lord Mountbatten had already agree on Amanda early on.)

If Charles had been allowed to marry whoever he wanted and things had transpired the way they did.

Yes, I believe if there was no Amanda and no other royal arranged marriage that he would have married Camilla in 1973.

And they would still be married.

 

[Aliza]

I am going to kick myself for asking, but what is your source Scooter?

Zonk, I can tell you exactly who is Scooter's source. It comes from the biography of Diana by Sally Bedell Smith, entitled; Diana, In Search of Herself.

This is a highly thought-of early post-mortem biography of Diana by a well-known and accomplished biographer.

To all who have been slamming Scooter,it might interest you to know that Saint James Palace cooperated with this biography to such a degree that the chapter on Diana supposedly having Borderline Personality Disorder was practically given to Smith by Dimbleby.

 

[Aliza]

I believe Charles was aware when he met Camilla that he was to have an arranged marriage with Amanda Knatchbull. (His mother, father and Lord Mountbatten had already agree on Amanda early on.)

If Charles had been allowed to marry whoever he wanted and things had transpired the way they did.

Yes, I believe if there was no Amanda and no other royal arranged marriage that he would have married Camilla in 1973.

And they would still be married.

The Queen Mother, never a fan of Dickie Mountbatten, was always against this plan. Amanda Knatchbull and her mother have both gone on record saying Charles did propose and that Amanda turned him down.

 

[Zonk]

Thanks Aliza for the information.

Let's keep this thread on topic...with the marriage of Charles and Camilla.

 

[Queen Camilla]

The Queen Mother, never a fan of Dickie Mountbatten, was always against this plan. Amanda Knatchbull and her mother have both gone on record saying Charles did propose and that Amanda turned him down.

Right my reply was based on that were no pre arranged marriages either from Lord Mountbatten or the Queen mother.

I agree Charles proposed to Amanda but that was several years after Camilla had already married Andrew.

In 1971, when Charles started dating Camilla, Amanda was only 13 years old.

He had not yet proposed to her. She was still in the running until 1980 after several members of her family were killed and severely injured including Lord Mountbatten who was killed.

Her brother mention that the Queen would invite them to BP and other royal residences. She was already motherly to Amanda.

The Queen mother did not have a chance it was 3 against 1. And with the death of Lord Mountbatten Charles was lost.

Even though she was still married to Andrew, he supposedly proposed to Camilla in 1979/1980 out of desperation and despair but she turn him and told him she would always be there for him.

1980 he is rumored to have proposed to 4 women before he turn his attention to Diana. Amanda, Anna Wallace, Jane and Camilla.

Yes the Queen mother wanted a Scot woman and maybe one of her friend's granddaughter but she only got her way because 1-4 turned him down.

 

[Charlotte1]

Zonk, I can tell you exactly who is Scooter's source. It comes from the biography of Diana by Sally Bedell Smith, entitled; Diana, In Search of Herself.

This is a highly thought-of early post-mortem biography of Diana by a well-known and accomplished biographer.

To all who have been slamming Scooter,it might interest you to know that Saint James Palace cooperated with this biography to such a degree that the chapter on Diana supposedly having Borderline Personality Disorder was practically given to Smith by Dimbleby.

I do get frustrated by distortions of information. St James's Palace didn't cooperate with Sally Bedell Smith. Dimbleby in various interviews did make public that he gave the information about Borderline Personality Disorder to Smith. At no time did he ever state it was because 'St James's Palace' or anyone else asked him to. What he did actually say was that for the 1994 offficial biography of Charles that he wrote a chapter on Diana having the Borderline Personality Disorder. (He said he researched it and Diana fitted the profile) Dimbleby included the chapter in the biography, it was Charles who asked him to take it out (regardless of what Charles thought about Diana, and this was at the height of the 'War of the Wales' she was still the mother of his sons) Some years later when Bedell Smith came to him for help with her biography of Diana he gave her the chapter and notes he had on the Personality Disorder and Bedell Smith included it in her biography. All this information is 'on record' since Dimbleby made it public.

 

[Kataryn]

I believe Charles was aware when he met Camilla that he was to have an arranged marriage with Amanda Knatchbull. (His mother, father and Lord Mountbatten had already agree on Amanda early on.)

If Charles had been allowed to marry whoever he wanted and things had transpired the way they did.

Yes, I believe if there was no Amanda and no other royal arranged marriage that he would have married Camilla in 1973.

And they would still be married.

That is a very interesting aspect. I never thought of it, but it could have been that way, yes.

 

[Meadow]

Camilla was considered unsuitable in part because of all the lovers she had back then. Everything I have read talks about that as being a big reason she was never considered. Also Camilla was in love with Andrew Parker Bowles and really wanted to marry him, she herself never thought she would be in for a real chance to be Charles's wife. As for the diagnosing of Diana I didn't realise these writers had done the years at university involved to actually diagnose someone with a mental illness. I also seem to remember Charles and Camilla telling people Diana was mad and there was no affair! I do think history is going to be rewritten in a way that portrays Camilla and Charles as these two sad lovers etc. But in the early days he wasn't just with Camilla he was with Kanga and a few other married women. Camilla simply outlasted them all at one point she was out in the cold and Kanga was very much in with Charles. In the end they have gotten together but they created one heck of a mess and caused a great deal of pain not just to Diana but to William and Harry as well. I don't believe Diana would have ever cheated if Charles had loved her and remained faithful to her. I do believe Camilla has worked hard to get accepted into the RF and she likes being behind the scenes but she will have to step things up when Charles becomes King. It will be interesting to see what things are bought up again when the time comes.