Charles and Camilla: The Marriage (2005 and on)

[Skydragon]

Charles only thinks about Charles.

But sweetie, according to all the wives I know, that is what all men do! (except my own of course. )

 

[milla Ca]

Charles only thinks about Charles. Lying Camilla is desperatly needed, to tell him only things he wants to heir, such as to reasure him on a daily basis that his close-set-eyes do not mean insincerity. Characteristically, that trait means you cannot be trusted. Many thiefs have eyes like that.

Also, does anyone in their right mind sincerily believe what the boys are forced to say about Camilla? My heart goes out to them......... how sad.

Pay attention, he will steal the crown in the near future!

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

Also, does anyone in their right mind sincerily believe what the boys are forced to say about Camilla? My heart goes out to them......... how sad.

No one can force Prince William or Prince Harry to pay lip service to anyone. William is 25. Harry is now going to be 23. They are neither boys or as weak-minded as you are suggesting. Quite the opposite of weak-minded, they are self-professedly stubborn, willful, and occasionally bull-headed about living their lives exactly as they deem appropriate.

 

[sirhon11234]

But sweetie, according to all the wives I know, that is what all men do

That is so not true I'am not self-centered.

 

[Elspeth]

Charles only thinks about Charles.

This is obviously not true. A person so self-centred would never have started and got so deeply involved in the Prince's Trust and Business in the Community. When you're so determined to blacken a person's name that you resort to obvious falsehoods, you aren't doing you own credibility any favours.

Lying Camilla is desperatly needed, to tell him only things he wants to heir, such as to reasure him on a daily basis that his close-set-eyes do not mean insincerity.

You do have evidence, of course, that she tells him this every day?

Didn't think so.

Characteristically, that trait means you cannot be trusted. Many thiefs have eyes like that.

I suppose the fact that many thieves don't have eyes like that is somehow irrelevant? Enquiring minds would really like to know.

Also, does anyone in their right mind sincerily believe what the boys are forced to say about Camilla? My heart goes out to them......... how sad.

Exactly how many people on this forum do you think you're accusing of being mentally incapacitated?

Here:

The Royal Forums Rules

Read and learn. Thank you.

 

[Elspeth]

That is so not true I'am not self-centered.

Yes, dear, but you're not married. Just you wait till the novelty has worn off, and you'll soon be hearing about how men are totall self-centred. Then think back to this thread and remember - you heard it here first...

 

[PoLo]

No one can force Prince William or Prince Harry to pay lip service to anyone. William is 25. Harry is now going to be 23. They are neither boys or as weak-minded as you are suggesting. Quite the opposite of weak-minded, they are self-professedly stubborn, willful, and occasionally bull-headed about living their lives exactly as they deem appropriate.

Ten years ago the boys were quite younger. From the moment Diana died, Prince Charles seized the opportunity to start his brain washing scheme. Prince Charles has desperatly needed the boys on his side so the public could somewhat accept what he had done. Which has worked on Harry better than William. The boys are both very intelligent, but a father figure especially of such prominance has alot of power over his impressionable young sons whom were devastated over the loss of their mother. They are brought up to be dutiful. When we are emotionally involved, we can't always see clearly. Sometimes it takes a lifetime to see what actually occured in our childhood. At 23 and 25 it might just be too painfull to see... so, they choose to ignore and go along. A survival technique.
I will never ever believe what Harry says about loving Camilla!

 

[sirhon11234]

Yes, dear, but you're not married. Just you wait till the novelty has worn off, and you'll soon be hearing about how men are totall self-centred. Then think back to this thread and remember - you heard it here first...

I guess its the women from venus and men from mars thing again.

 

[Vanesa]

Yes, dear, but you're not married. Just you wait till the novelty has worn off, and you'll soon be hearing about how men are totall self-centred. Then think back to this thread and remember - you heard it here first...

This is not what my mother, grandmother and two great-grandma's used to said about their husbands (my mother keep saying it, for happily, she is alive! ) I don't like the nowadays opposition women-men. We come to earth to live our lives together. Women and men. And I don't think that men are self-centered, nor women. There are self-centered men and women, but not all of them are! What are people from nowadays so totalitarian and absolute when judging people?

I wish I could have a good matrimony built over love and confidence as all the women in my family had...and I'm sorry for these men and women who didn't find a good partenaire to live with.

Prince Charles CAN be self-centered, I think that he couldn't developpe his personnality as well as wished and he must marry a women he didn't love. Now, he is beginning to live and it's almost like a child. Children are self-centered until they reach teenager years, and I think that the Prince of Wales is, in certain aspects of his life, a pre-teen boy. I'm not blaming him for it, he had no option with the education he received....but I suppose he is INDEED self-centered.But this doesn't meant he would not be able to involve actively in Community problems and in his work as Heir. When I said he is a little self-centered, I'm not affirming he is totally self-centered.

Vanesa.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Ten years ago the boys were quite younger. From the moment Diana died, Prince Charles seized the opportunity to start his brain washing scheme. Prince Charles has desperatly needed the boys on his side so the public could somewhat accept what he had done. Which has worked on Harry better than William. The boys are both very intelligent, but a father figure especially of such prominance has alot of power over his impressionable young sons whom were devastated over the loss of their mother. They are brought up to be dutiful. When we are emotionally involved, we can't always see clearly. Sometimes it takes a lifetime to see what actually occured in our childhood. At 23 and 25 it might just be too painfull to see... so, they choose to ignore and go along. A survival technique.
I will never ever believe what Harry says about loving Camilla!

I wonder why you seem to be interested in two young men you obviously believe to be brain-washed. Are there not people around you can believe in?

 

[milla Ca]

Ten years ago the boys were quite younger. From the moment Diana died, Prince Charles seized the opportunity to start his brain washing scheme. Prince Charles has desperatly needed the boys on his side so the public could somewhat accept what he had done. Which has worked on Harry better than William. The boys are both very intelligent, but a father figure especially of such prominance has alot of power over his impressionable young sons whom were devastated over the loss of their mother. They are brought up to be dutiful. When we are emotionally involved, we can't always see clearly. Sometimes it takes a lifetime to see what actually occured in our childhood. At 23 and 25 it might just be too painfull to see... so, they choose to ignore and go along. A survival technique.
I will never ever believe what Harry says about loving Camilla!

Your statements have nothing to do with this thread and and they have nothing to do with any truth.
Brain washing? Eyes like a thief? etc. Start writing a fantasy thriller maybe you will find some readers. I don´t think this is the right place for this utter nonsence.

 

[Skydragon]

This is not what my mother, grandmother and two great-grandma's used to said about their husbands (my mother keep saying it, for happily, she is alive! ) I don't like the nowadays opposition women-men. We come to earth to live our lives together. Women and men. And I don't think that men are self-centered, nor women. There are self-centered men and women, but not all of them are! What are people from nowadays so totalitarian and absolute when judging people?

It was a joke!

 

[ysbel]

If someone is in the position that Diana and Charles were with minions and flunkies waiting on you hand and foot and telling you how great you are all the time, its pretty hard for the average person not to be self-centered in that position.

I think men have more of a tendency to be self centered than women because society encourages men to look after their own needs and not let themselves get pushed around whereas women are raised to take care of others and not focus on their own needs. Generally though in our culture, to be considered self-centered is not usually considered a bad trait for a man but it is considered a bad trait for a woman.

I just watched the movie The Devil Wears Prada and one of the lines from the movie was that if a man acted the way the fashion exec Miranda Priestly acted the man would be called brilliant whereas Miranda was just called the Dragon Lady and had a reputation as impossible to work for.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

If someone is in the position that Diana and Charles were with minions and flunkies waiting on you hand and foot and telling you how great you are all the time, its pretty hard for the average person not to be self-centered in that position.

That is true to an extent, for men are (or were traditionally, maybe not so much anymore) also raised to be the breadwinners of the family, to get a good education so they can make lots of money and build a prosperous life. That is why in the course of human history, men have been very much driven career or job-wise, and sometimes accused by their wives of not spending enough "quality time" with the family. Hence the "self-centered" line.

I think men have more of a tendency to be self centered than women because society encourages men to look after their own needs and not let themselves get pushed around whereas women are raised to take care of others and not focus on their own needs. Generally though in our culture, to be considered self-centered is not usually considered a bad trait for a man but it is considered a bad trait for a woman.

I just watched the movie The Devil Wears Prada and one of the lines from the movie was that if a man acted the way the fashion exec Miranda Priestly acted the man would be called brilliant whereas Miranda was just called the Dragon Lady and had a reputation as impossible to work for.

This is totally true. A woman with the same gungho traits in the work force can often be considered a "bitch", whereas a man with the same traits would be considered "ambitious, driven, hard working, dedicated."

 

[ysbel]

Well I think two things contribute to being self-centered. Both women and men can have flunkies and yes men fuelling their self centeredness but only men are condoned by society as a whole for being self-centered.

Both Charles and Diana had their hangers-on telling them how wonderful they were and how horrible the other was. Charles had his set of friends and Diana had her Andrew Morton, Richard Kay, etc.

However, despite the ability to have flunkies and yes-men, women generally aren't condoned by society as a whole for being self-centered and Charles being a male and the heir to the throne was probably encouraged during his childhood from everybody (even the non-flunkies) to be more self-centered than others.

 

[cde]

Your statements have nothing to do with this thread and and they have nothing to do with any truth.
Brain washing? Eyes like a thief? etc. Start writing a fantasy thriller maybe you will find some readers. I don´t think this is the right place for this utter nonsence.

I agree milla CA. Polo's statements in this and at least one other thread have little or nothing to do with the topic being discussed. This topic is "the marriage"not William and Harry and the marriage. William and Harry have their own section and sub topics. If Polo's topics don't fit in the categories offered, she should start her own threads and not hijack threads with her Diana extremist beliefs.

 

[ysbel]

The moderators don't always delete inappropriate posts but rest assured that the inappropriate posts in this thread have already been handled. Let's move on.

ysbel
British forums moderator

 

[Duchess]

while i don't think charles is the love of camilla's life, she is definitely the love of his. i think it's ok too...they work well together and she obviously accepts his role and duty and all the things that go with being a member of the RF. this is IMO the best marriage for him and she, at least, appears to be happy as well.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

while i don't think charles is the love of camilla's life, she is definitely the love of his. i think it's ok too...they work well together and she obviously accepts his role and duty and all the things that go with being a member of the RF. this is IMO the best marriage for him and she, at least, appears to be happy as well.

I have mixed feelings here. I think perhaps you are right. At the same time, I think that it's possible Camilla has fallen in love Charles as much as he has fallen for her. I imagine that Charles was the first to fall, and maybe Camilla was torn between APB and Charles, who knows? Impossible to know, but this has always been my impression, and it has long struck me that she seems to have progressively become more attached to her relationship with Charles, particularly after her separation and divorce. That said, while I think we agree that Charles was not always "the love" of her life, it seems to be the case that he is now and likely to remain "the love" of her present and future. I agree completely that they are a great team. Camilla is a good royal consort in that she will never spill the beans or cause controversy of any magnitude. She will walk the line and do her duty. Charles also had a good team with Diana, until of course the marriage went down the tubes and they began leading separate lives. But be that as it may, Camilla and Charles are certainly the more ideally matched. They have the most compatibility, no doubts about that.

 

[Skydragon]

It is sad that they all ended up with the wrong partners, but these things happen and have happened for years. I believe Camilla loved Charles, but was bullied by factions of his family, to do the right thing and settle elsewhere.

They are happy together now, there is so much misery in this world, surely nobody begrudges them their golden years - together?

 

[Duchess]

i think you're both right. they're happy now and that's all that matters. i hope they have a wonderful future together.

 

[Polly]

It is sad that they all ended up with the wrong partners, but these things happen and have happened for years. I believe Camilla loved Charles, but was bullied by factions of his family, to do the right thing and settle elsewhere.

They are happy together now, there is so much misery in this world, surely nobody begrudges them their golden years - together?

Well, I, for one, certainly don't begrudge Charles and Camilla their happiness, and, like you, wish them every good thing and joy and pleasure from their children and families.

However, I do believe that it's true that Camilla's greatest love was Andrew, and those whom I know in the UK tend to confirm this. Andrew, but, wasn't so compliant, nor confident in his choice.

Nor do I believe that Charles was unduly influenced by his family: at the time, Charles was influenced by indecision and a sense of his own sense of 'worth'.

It is inaccurate and wrong, in my opinion, to adorn the then tortuous and circular marital facade and circuses in any other way than what it was: questionable and very disappointing to many of usl

All parties were thoroughly duplicitous, I do believe.

None of which encourages me to not wish the Prince of Wales and his wife good luck, good fortune, and enduring happiness.

But please, let's not ignore the truth of the unedifying and contrived, and PR-spinned past. It does not enhance the reputations of any ,but, alternatively, subjects those whom we care about to easy and obvious ridicule when they continue to deny history and reality.

 

[Skydragon]

and those whom I know in the UK tend to confirm this.

Which only goes to show that those of us who were there, at the time, see the same events differently.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Which only goes to show that those of us who were there, at the time, see the same events differently.

Especially as neither of the people concerned ever talked about their feelings for each other in public. Yes, maybe a confidante of Camilla's might know how she feels for Andrew and for Charles but so far no confidante shared her knowledge with us, so everything is pure speculation.

But why speculate at all? We see two couples: Charles and Camilla, Andrew and Rosemary who in public behave friendly and appear to be in love with their spouse. Isn't that enough to be able to feel glad for them?

 

[Skydragon]

Especially as neither of the people concerned ever talked about their feelings for each other in public. Yes, maybe a confidante of Camilla's might know how she feels for Andrew and for Charles but so far no confidante shared her knowledge with us, so everything is pure speculation.

But why speculate at all? We see two couples: Charles and Camilla, Andrew and Rosemary who in public behave friendly and appear to be in love with their spouse. Isn't that enough to be able to feel glad for them?

Quite right, well said Jo. Charles and Camilla both have 'true' friends, none of whom feel the need to speak out.

 

[diamondBrg]

I may be putting my foot squarely in my mouth here, had Camilla and Charles been allowed to marry back in the 70s, I think a great deal of heartache for everyone involved could have been avoided.

Camilla was the woman that Charles fell in love with and it is obvious she fell in love with him as well. I think both married other people that they were not in love with. Starting with the world wide sexual revolution of the 60s, society changed dramatically and they were both part of that change. Women were no longer going to remain virgins until marriage, at least in their majority numbers.

Diana might well have lived a happy and long life and enjoyed that life with someone suitable for her as an individual that could meet her needs and she his.

I realize there is a very long history of protocol associated with the British monoarchy and I do respect the institution, but perhaps the institution needs to evolve a bit as well?

 

[Roslyn]

I may be putting my foot squarely in my mouth here, had Camilla and Charles been allowed to marry back in the 70s, I think a great deal of heartache for everyone involved could have been avoided.

I don't think it was that simple. They were much younger and at different stages of their lives, and Camilla was older than Charles and had different wants. She wanted to be married, and he wasn't read for that yet.

Diana might well have lived a happy and long life and enjoyed that life with someone suitable for her as an individual that could meet her needs and she his.

I certainly agree that Charles should never have married Diana, as they were so ill-suited. They were both unhappy for so long and Diana never had the opportunity to know the sort of contentment and love and mutual support that Charles & Camilla now have. I think it's very sad that Diana never had that happiness.

I realize there is a very long history of protocol associated with the British monoarchy and I do respect the institution, but perhaps the institution needs to evolve a bit as well?

Hear, hear! I consider that the institution does need to evolve at a faster rate than it has, but I think that was unlikely to happen under the very long reign of conservative traditionalist HM Elizabeth II. She has been much loved and respected for doing things exactly the way she has done them.

 

[wbenson]

I think the institution is evolving at the same rate as the rest of the world, it's just offset by several years in doing so.

 

[scooter]

I don't think it was that simple. They were much younger and at different stages of their lives, and Camilla was older than Charles and had different wants. She wanted to be married, and he wasn't read for that yet.



I certainly agree that Charles should never have married Diana, as they were so ill-suited. They were both unhappy for so long and Diana never had the opportunity to know the sort of contentment and love and mutual support that Charles & Camilla now have. I think it's very sad that Diana never had that happiness.



Hear, hear! I consider that the institution does need to evolve at a faster rate than it has, but I think that was unlikely to happen under the very long reign of conservative traditionalist HM Elizabeth II. She has been much loved and respected for doing things exactly the way she has done them.

I dont think that when Charles and Camilla met that she was looking to get married at that point. I recently read in 'the Windsor Knot" that on the day they met (the infamous your grandfather and my great grandmother were lovers so how about it) Camilla took Charles home and 'had him for dessert' that very night. Yes it was 1972, but still this is not the mark of someone who is actively looking to settle down. I also think that alone, was enough to put her out of the running as far as the palace was concerned. She was never going to be the 'suitable girl to be the mother of the heir'. Luckily for both of them, they were allowed to marry later in life.

 

[love_cc]

I dont think that when Charles and Camilla met that she was looking to get married at that point. I recently read in 'the Windsor Knot" that on the day they met (the infamous your grandfather and my great grandmother were lovers so how about it) Camilla took Charles home and 'had him for dessert' that very night. Yes it was 1972, but still this is not the mark of someone who is actively looking to settle down. I also think that alone, was enough to put her out of the running as far as the palace was concerned. She was never going to be the 'suitable girl to be the mother of the heir'. Luckily for both of them, they were allowed to marry later in life.

I am confused about the timing you mentioned. I think Camilla first met Charles in 1971. Quoted by Charles himself they were introduced by Lucia Santa Cruz, his Cambridge girlfriend, but it seemed that Camilla and Charles did not start their courtship until 1972 summer. I think the hot affair probably started from the night club Annable when Andrew PB were posted to Germany which gave Camilla time and space to explore new relationships. I believe it was the case of "out of sight, out of mind".

IMO Camilla waited for Andrew PB to settle down for a long time, if Andrew PB did not marry her in 1973, she would have married someone else to ensure that she would set up her own family as soon as possbile. The idea of "marriage" was definately in Camilla's mind for a long time but she fell into love with Andrew PB and Prince Charles, thus she was in quite tricky situations. Actually I always wonder how Camilla can get herself into this? Luckily, the timing for Charles and Camilla is finally right and then they got married.