The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #501  
Old 02-19-2005, 02:38 PM
MoonlightRhapsody's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Garden Grove, United States
Posts: 934
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiaraprin
Wymanda,

When Diana walked down the aisle on July 29, 1981, she was a virgin, who to the best of her naive knowledge, loved the man she was marrying and fufilling the all too popular fantasy of actually becoming a princess. Prince Charles invited his mistress to his wedding and lied before God and the world when he took his wedding vows! Yes Diana did have lovers--God knows Charles treatment of her drove her to it in the isolated position she was in. In regard to her affair with the married Oliver Hoare, that was wrong. However, I did read recently that Hoare had planned to leave his wife for Diana and had been separated from his wife before he and Diana had their affair. Whether that be true or not, I do not know.

Camilla and Charles were the sinners long before Diana was, although I don't excuse her errors. At least Diana went in with good faith and wasn't like Camilla who was vetting her out to see what her position would be once Charles married Diana. At least Diana was no hypocrite being kind and smiling as Camilla was desperately trying to "protect her property."

Camilla does not deserve an HRH and does not deserve to be Queen. She was a vital element to the breakdown of the marriage of Charles and Diana who already had enough problems. If she had not been a factor in the disintegration of the marriage and not the mistress of Charles, I would be in favor of it. I just wish Charles could have found a nice, respectable lady who would be an asset and a tribute to England.
Here, here, tiaraprin! I completely agree; hit the nail squarely on the head!
__________________

__________________
*~* In matters of style, swim with the current. In matters of principle, stand like a rock. *~*
*~* Judge not those who try and fail. Judge those who fail to try. *~*
Sweden's Picture of the Month Represenative
  #502  
Old 02-19-2005, 02:47 PM
MoonlightRhapsody's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Garden Grove, United States
Posts: 934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
He said he'd ended the relationship with Mrs Parker Bowles before the wedding. You have no more idea than any of the rest of us whether he meant it and whether he was or was not lying when he took his wedding vows. It's been stated by several people who knew the Prince and Princess that she was consumed with jealousy about his relationship with Camilla from the start of their marriage and wouldn't let the matter drop - and eventually she became so impossible to live with that he went back to Camilla because he wanted to be with someone who wasn't forever screaming at him. Diana was just as responsible for the problems in the marriage as Charles was, if she couldn't be rational about Camilla and if she couldn't see her way to making Charles's life pleasant rather than unpleasant. If I'd had nothing but inquisitions and accusations and rants and raves about previous boyfriends from my husband from the first day of our honeymoon and nothing I said had made any difference, I don't think I'd have stayed married very long. Nor would most people.



Diana had to have known about the Charles-Camilla affair before she and Charles were engaged; too many people in the tight-knit upper-class society knew about it for her not to have also known. She went into that marriage knowing that he'd had a long-term relationship with Camilla but had assured her that he'd ended it; this wasn't some revelation that hit her out of the blue too late for her to do anything about it. Knowing about that relationship, she had the option of making herself an attractive alternative to Camilla. It might not have worked, but she could at least have tried. Instead of which, she went about things in a disastrously immature and possessive sort of way, and predictably it had the opposite effect. She also had to have known that the royal family weren't emotionally open and that they were a closed shop in terms of uniting against perceived threats. She took a potentially bad matter and made it a great deal worse with her response to it. Of course Charles's family was going to stand by him and look the other way. The thing I've always wondered is why her own parents and sisters did so little for her when things were difficult at the beginning and she needed wise advice.
Okay, let's try this: Everyone, do this with me.

Let's play the "Put yourselves in her shoes" game. Imagine you are 19 years old, a sheltered virgin, falling in-love with a literal Prince at-least-to-you Charming. You know that he had been involved with a married woman for a very long time but he swears it's over. He then presents you with a tray of engagement rings for you to choose instead of picking it out himself. Hmm...okay...Then you have second thoughts about the whole thing. However, there is absolutely no way out and decide to trust your fiancee and go ahead with the wedding. To your surprise, your soon-to-be husband's former lover/mistress is at your wedding at his invitation! Then, at your wedding night, he is wearing a pair of cufflinks his lover/mistress had given him. On top of that, he is calling her while on your honeymoon....Everyone get that?

Okay, how would you feel? Personally, I'd have doubts that his relationship with the other woman is over. While he may not have been physically committing adultery at that time, to me, emotional adultery is just as bad. If you were in-love with this person you married and he's still talking to his ex, wearing stuff she gave him, and being at your wedding...how would you take it?
__________________

__________________
*~* In matters of style, swim with the current. In matters of principle, stand like a rock. *~*
*~* Judge not those who try and fail. Judge those who fail to try. *~*
Sweden's Picture of the Month Represenative
  #503  
Old 02-19-2005, 03:33 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Well, there's the option of not getting involved with the guy (knowing about this long-term relationship), there's the option of getting married and making the best of things by trying to provide an attractive alternative to the ex-mistress, and there's the option of getting married and expecting everybody else to do the changing. Sure, she can be excused on the basis of being too young and naive to handle the situation, but that doesn't help things from a practical point of view if she's making Charles's life hell on earth in the process.

If Charles really had given up Camilla - and even persuaded himself he'd done it permanently - then the constant accusations from his wife that he was still seeing her would have been not only intensely annoying but a clear declaration of lack of trust. Sooner or later he was going to put two and two together and figure out that as long as she was never going to shut up about Camilla, he might as well go back to Camilla because the only practical difference would be that he'd be spending some of his time with someone who did care about him. The possibility of her possessive and angry behaviour leading to Charles going back to Camilla is something she needed to have pointed out to her by a trusted family member, and it seems as though nobody was there to do it.

Diana needed help from older and wiser heads before the engagement and marriage to show her that if she went ahead, there were better and worse ways of handling the situation. Either she didn't get it or she didn't heed it. Since she seemed not to be especially close to her mother or the most sensible of her siblings and since it seems that her grandmother was more concerned about the royal family's welfare than Diana's, it seems that she didn't get it.

I'm sure you've read books even by people who were supporters of hers who said that from quite young she showed this tendency toward extreme possessiveness. It's tragic that she should have ended up in a marriage where the worst side of that aspect of her personality was given an excuse to dominate, but unfortunately that's what happened. To blame Charles and Camilla totally and excuse Diana entirely is, in my opinion, a very biassed reading of the situation. When I've come across highly possessive and insecure people having problems with relationships, the problem is always at least partly theirs.

Having said all that, I don't see a problem with Charles marrying Camilla now, and much as you might think Camilla doesn't deserve an HRH, realistically they're having to give it to her or they're showing that they turfed Edward VIII off the throne under false pretences. In the long view, that's more important than the feelings of the Diana supporters.
  #504  
Old 02-19-2005, 03:39 PM
susan alicia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: , Netherlands
Posts: 2,529
it was partly built by sir christopher wren, son of the dean of windsor. He was perhaps the greatest architect of england or of the late 17th century.
after the great london fire of 1666 destroyed the gothic cathedral of st paul he built the church (1675-1710) as we know it now.

so camilla and charles are getting married in an ok building but I read somewhere that the buillding needs some cleaning and stuff to make it perfect for a royal wedding

and then everyone will want to get married there...


Quote:
Originally Posted by ~*~Humera~*~
This is where Charles and Camilla will marry
From Abaca Press
  #505  
Old 02-19-2005, 04:01 PM
aninhas
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
Well, there's the option of not getting involved with the guy (knowing about this long-term relationship), there's the option of getting married and making the best of things by trying to provide an attractive alternative to the ex-mistress, and there's the option of getting married and expecting everybody else to do the changing. Sure, she can be excused on the basis of being too young and naive to handle the situation, but that doesn't help things from a practical point of view if she's making Charles's life hell on earth in the process.
:( :( :( :( :( :( :(

You have a heart of steel... :(
  #506  
Old 02-19-2005, 04:32 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Yes, dear, I know. Check my avatar.

On the other hand, practically speaking, what other alternatives were there?
  #507  
Old 02-19-2005, 04:34 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
it was partly built by sir christopher wren, son of the dean of windsor. He was perhaps the greatest architect of england or of the late 17th century.
after the great london fire of 1666 destroyed the gothic cathedral of st paul he built the church (1675-1710) as we know it now.
Oh, my - so Charles is getting married for the second time in a building associated with the building where he got married the first time?
  #508  
Old 02-19-2005, 04:36 PM
Ennyllorac's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: , United States
Posts: 1,975
I have to say... What is in the past is in the past. What truly happened only the real parties involved know and it is their business. Diana died 7 years ago. Let's let her rest in peace and move on. Charles and Camilla have a right to happiness. Besides it is not our place to judge.


(and I go on record saying that I was a huge Diana fan)
  #509  
Old 02-19-2005, 04:42 PM
susan alicia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: , Netherlands
Posts: 2,529
you are so quick,

I have been thinking about it being a building of wren for a few days now and the thought never crossed my mind. that is a funny coincidence and I have not read the association in a single newspaper either.:)



Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
Oh, my - so Charles is getting married for the second time in a building associated with the building where he got married the first time?
  #510  
Old 02-19-2005, 08:59 PM
wymanda's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
Since she seemed not to be especially close to her mother or the most sensible of her siblings and since it seems that her grandmother was more concerned about the royal family's welfare than Diana's, it seems that she didn't get it.
IMO Lady Fermoy & the Queen Mum were the instigaters of a marriage between Charles & one of the Spencer girls. When Lady Sarah let them down with her ill timed remarks about Dustmen their sights obviously fell on Diana who was meek enough to do what Granny told her to do.

When you consider that Lady Fermoy had gone to court and declared her own daughter an unfit mother you really can't expect her to give two hoots about her granddaughters welfare or happiness in her marriage. Had she still been alive when Charles & Diana split she probably would have done the same thing to Diana so that she lost access to William & Harry.

I have never thought Diana was a bad mother. I just think she made some poor choices like using William to pour out all her troubles too. For Heavens sake he was a child! I also thought she was wrong in badmouthing Charles to his children. Whatever went on between Diana & Charles he was still their father. Mind you I think Diana's biggest mistake in the whole saga was her inability to keep her own counsel or to put it more bluntly, TO KEEP HER MOUTH SHUT!

The ability to do this is something I have always admired about Camilla. She has never spoken to the press about her relationship with Charles & has obviously never said anything of any importance about the relationship to her freinds. Either that or her freinds are "true friends" who also know how to mind their own business and not blab to the press at every opportunity. :)
__________________
Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
  #511  
Old 02-19-2005, 10:33 PM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
Thank You!

I would like to thank Moonlightrhapsody and Regina for their support and thank yous. This issue is quite a divisive one and there will never been 100% percent agreement on it. I will never back down from my view, and neither will the opposition. I left this site for months due to the increasing antipathy of the opposition; but I felt I had to come back when the marriage of Charles and Camilla was announced. I also realized I was just as entitled to my opinion as they are. My country is based on this simple fact.

The British monarchy is struggling for a way forward here in the 21st century. Charles marrying Camilla at this point--well I don't care one jot about that. What I DO CARE ABOUT is her receiving an HRH and the possibility of becoming Queen once his mother dies. The thought of the Countess of Wessex, The Princess Royal, and the rest of the Royal Duchesses "technically" having to curtsey to this woman makes me feel nauseous! Her past behavior does not entitle her to the honors that will be bestowed on her. It doesn't matter if she has never talked to the press, her other actions speak much louder than words.

People say Diana emotionally harmed her children?? Well, Camilla has done the same to hers. Tom Parker-Bowles has had many difficulties with drugs. If I recall correctly, during her famously taped conversation with Charles, she was dismayed it was Tom's birthday and she had to host a bunch of his friends at her home instead of seeing Charles. Oh the agony!!! Who knows what damage has been inflicted upon Tom Parker-Bowles due to his mother's legendary liasion??

Prince Harry has had a scrape with drugs and alcohol also. Poor Harry lost his mum at such a young age and it has been asserted all the attention went to William as the heir and Harry was forgotten within the Windsor family. If Diana poured out too much to William, well she was the only one who really gave Harry the love and attention he deserved. Let us remember that Charles was highly disappointed at Harry's birth. He wanted a daughter, but got another son. As Frances Shand-Kydd has been quoted saying to Charles: "At least you had a child that is healthy and normal." It has also been said the late Queen Mum basically ignored Harry and fawned over William as the heir. That is just so sad. You would think the Queen Mum would have known the importance of the second son from life experience!

The hope of the British Monarchy lies solely with poor William with Harry as his supporter. I feel so awful for William. To know that so much is dependent on one has to be one of the most daunting feelings one could ever experience.
  #512  
Old 02-19-2005, 10:40 PM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
matching hearts of steel

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
Yes, dear, I know. Check my avatar.
Well Elspeth's "heart of steel" in relation to Diana matches my "heart of steel' for Camilla Parker-Bowles!!!!!! :p :p
  #513  
Old 02-19-2005, 11:15 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,194
Yo- I heard that the Queen won't allow Charles' organic veggies at the reception. She also wants there to be only one large table instead of alot of small ones. And, due to the fact that she is Queen, she will have her way.
  #514  
Old 02-20-2005, 12:06 AM
Danielle's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,954
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaggleofcrazypeople
Yo- I heard that the Queen won't allow Charles' organic veggies at the reception. She also wants there to be only one large table instead of alot of small ones. And, due to the fact that she is Queen, she will have her way.
Why would she object to organic veggies? That's just a silly thing to worry about in light of the situation.
__________________

  #515  
Old 02-20-2005, 02:43 AM
MoonlightRhapsody's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Garden Grove, United States
Posts: 934
I don't hate Camilla, I just have a deep sense of dislike for her for what she represents. She represents all the adulterous women who can't seem to honor religious premises of marriage by engaging in adulterous acts with married men. I'm a devout Catholic and marriage is sacred for me. It's "till death do us part" like it says in the vows. Now, personally for me, as a woman and at the very basic level, my husband now becomes my territory and anyone who trespasses on that I will be severely savage to. Find your own man.

Now, Camilla, not only did she get involved in a marriage that was not yet terminated, she also betrayed her husband and her children. It doesn't matter if your married lover's marriage is "on the rocks" or they are separated. If in the eyes of the law and/or God they are still married, they are still married and therefore, not free to pursue a sexual relationship or otherwise with other people.

Again, I agree with tiaraprin. Frankly, I don't care about Camilla and Charles. What I'm arguing for is the principle. The Church of England, I found, is being very hypocritical in their decision to let those two adulterers get married. When they relaxed remarriages by divorcees, one stipulation was that their current partners must not have been a factor of the break-up of the other's marriage. They are both guilty of that, and yet they're still sanctioned? They are legitimizing an old wrongdoing. Two guilty and self-admitted adulterers are being allowed to marry with the woman who came between a man and his legal and spiritual wife being able to become royal by virtue of a marriage that has a pretty discouraging start. Uh huh...


And, while I may not be without sin, I sure as heck have never and would never get involved with an involved man, dating, married, or otherwise. I respect relationships and the sanctity it entails. Don't do unto others what you don't want them do unto you.
__________________
*~* In matters of style, swim with the current. In matters of principle, stand like a rock. *~*
*~* Judge not those who try and fail. Judge those who fail to try. *~*
Sweden's Picture of the Month Represenative
  #516  
Old 02-20-2005, 02:52 AM
Danielle's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,954
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlightrhapsody
I don't hate Camilla, I just have a deep sense of dislike for her for what she represents. She represents all the adulterous women who can't seem to honor religious premises of marriage by engaging in adulterous acts with married men. I'm a devout Catholic and marriage is sacred for me. It's "till death do us part" like it says in the vows. Now, personally for me, as a woman and at the very basic level, my husband now becomes my territory and anyone who trespasses on that I will be severely savage to. Find your own man.

Now, Camilla, not only did she get involved in a marriage that was not yet terminated, she also betrayed her husband and her children. It doesn't matter if your married lover's marriage is "on the rocks" or they are separated. If in the eyes of the law and/or God they are still married, they are still married and therefore, not free to pursue a sexual relationship or otherwise with other people.

Again, I agree with tiaraprin. Frankly, I don't care about Camilla and Charles. What I'm arguing for is the principle. The Church of England, I found, is being very hypocritical in their decision to let those two adulterers get married. When they relaxed remarriages by divorcees, one stipulation was that their current partners must not have been a factor of the break-up of the other's marriage. They are both guilty of that, and yet they're still sanctioned? They are legitimizing an old wrongdoing. Two guilty and self-admitted adulterers are being allowed to marry with the woman who came between a man and his legal and spiritual wife being able to become royal by virtue of a marriage that has a pretty discouraging start. Uh huh...


And, while I may not be without sin, I sure as heck have never and would never get involved with an involved man, dating, married, or otherwise. I respect relationships and the sanctity it entails. Don't do unto others what you don't want them do unto you.
I agree with every single word you have written. Thank you!
__________________

  #517  
Old 02-20-2005, 03:10 AM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by trinny
Geniune question - would you explain why it makes you nauseous?

I personally don't have a problem with her and I have a lot of trouble understanding the people who are SO angry with her and Charles.

I see it as life... these sorts of things happen everyday... do the people who hate her hate her because they've experienced something like this in their own lives? Because their faith tells them it's "bad". Their own personal code tells them so.

I hope I don't sound totally stupid.

I'm geniunely trying to understand, I don't understand the depth of hatred - how can one person create such strong feelings in people?
Thank you.
I appreciate the fact Trinny that you are asking why I feel the way I do. I have no problem explaining my feelings to you. Just as Diana stirred in me great feelings of love and admiration, Camilla stirs feelings of anger and hatred inside of me because she hurt the monarchy, Diana, Diana's sons, her own children, and her own marriage.

I see Camilla as a major factor in the breakup of the Wales' marriage. Yes, there were other problems of incompatibility, the pressure for Charles to marry, and the pressure for Diana to marry into the royal family. However, Charles and Camilla were cheating and degrading Diana before she took the adulterous steps they did.

Diana was a very young 19, and Camilla picked her out of a list of potential brides because she would be the least trouble to her liasion with Charles. Diana was set up from day one and no one cared--Charles, Camilla, the royal family, or the Spencer family. To do this to another human being is deplorable. Diana's hand was forced and she made a tremendous mistake marrying Charles. All Diana wanted was to have a husband that loved her, children, and a good marriage. Love and a warm marriage were never going to be in the cards with Charles just marrying for the sake of marrying; Camilla picking "a mouse" that would not undermine her position; a royal family that wanted an heir and not another "Uncle David"; and the Spencer family who wanted to be forever tied to the Windsors. How could Diana possibly win and have any hopes of a happy life with all of this?? This is what makes me side with her. Yes, Diana made mistakes in her attempts to free herself from the disaster she found herself in the middle of. However, she stood up for women everywhere by not accepting the shoddy behavior being accorded to her.

Camilla betrayed her own marriage, inflicted unknown damage upon her own children to follow in the footsteps of her great-grandmother, Alice Keppel. Diana did do similar things when she was forced into lonliness, despair and the misguided hope of saving her marriage. Camilla did it out of ambition and greed.

That is why Camilla does not deserve any honors, titles, or deference that would normally be due the wife of the Prince of Wales. She should just marry Charles and have a marginal title such as Her Grace, the Duchess of Cornwall.
How can Camilla deserve the curtseys of Sophie and the other royal ladies who have lead exemplary lives thus far?? How could William's or Harry's future wives curtsey to the woman that brought such unhappiness to their mother?? It is UNACCEPTABLE and DEPLORABLE. If I were a British citizen, I would NEVER curtsey to her or Charles. Curtseying to her is a betrayal of the monarchy. My heart is made of steel when it comes to Camilla, and there is nothing she could ever do to change it--not that she would care.

I would curtsey to William and Harry--even as an American!!
  #518  
Old 02-20-2005, 03:14 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaggleofcrazypeople
Yo- I heard that the Queen won't allow Charles' organic veggies at the reception. She also wants there to be only one large table instead of alot of small ones. And, due to the fact that she is Queen, she will have her way.
OK, this is getting bizarre. What sort of veggies does she want, for goodness sake?
  #519  
Old 02-20-2005, 03:17 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
Again, I agree with tiaraprin. Frankly, I don't care about Camilla and Charles. What I'm arguing for is the principle. The Church of England, I found, is being very hypocritical in their decision to let those two adulterers get married. When they relaxed remarriages by divorcees, one stipulation was that their current partners must not have been a factor of the break-up of the other's marriage. They are both guilty of that, and yet they're still sanctioned?
No, it isn't being sanctioned. It's a civil wedding, not a CofE one. The service of prayer and dedication afterwards is perfectly standard and has been the way things have been done for years. You might argue that it's hypocritical of the church to forbid these marriages and then appear to sanction them by this service of prayer and dedication, and I'd tend to agree with you, but it's not something they dreamed up specially for Charles, it's the way things have been done for decades.
  #520  
Old 02-20-2005, 03:22 AM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
Thumbs up Can I have an Amen to that????

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlightrhapsody
I don't hate Camilla, I just have a deep sense of dislike for her for what she represents. She represents all the adulterous women who can't seem to honor religious premises of marriage by engaging in adulterous acts with married men. I'm a devout Catholic and marriage is sacred for me. It's "till death do us part" like it says in the vows. Now, personally for me, as a woman and at the very basic level, my husband now becomes my territory and anyone who trespasses on that I will be severely savage to. Find your own man.

Now, Camilla, not only did she get involved in a marriage that was not yet terminated, she also betrayed her husband and her children. It doesn't matter if your married lover's marriage is "on the rocks" or they are separated. If in the eyes of the law and/or God they are still married, they are still married and therefore, not free to pursue a sexual relationship or otherwise with other people.

Again, I agree with tiaraprin. Frankly, I don't care about Camilla and Charles. What I'm arguing for is the principle. The Church of England, I found, is being very hypocritical in their decision to let those two adulterers get married. When they relaxed remarriages by divorcees, one stipulation was that their current partners must not have been a factor of the break-up of the other's marriage. They are both guilty of that, and yet they're still sanctioned? They are legitimizing an old wrongdoing. Two guilty and self-admitted adulterers are being allowed to marry with the woman who came between a man and his legal and spiritual wife being able to become royal by virtue of a marriage that has a pretty discouraging start. Uh huh...


And, while I may not be without sin, I sure as heck have never and would never get involved with an involved man, dating, married, or otherwise. I respect relationships and the sanctity it entails. Don't do unto others what you don't want them do unto you.

AMEN TO THAT!!!! And while I may not be without sin, I have never cheated on my significant other with another man--I was taught better by my mother!! It seems Camilla just had her great-grandmother's example to follow. Cheating is one of the WORST things you can do to another human being--except Charles because he didn't care as long as Diana didn't bother him and he didn't love her anyway by his own admission to Jonathan Dimbleby.
__________________

Closed Thread

Tags
camilla, camilla parker bowles, duchess of cornwall, engagement, 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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Charles and Camilla: The Marriage (2005 and on) VuMom The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 1583 04-09-2015 11:10 PM
Charles and Camilla: Visit to Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and the UAE - February 2007 hornsen Royal and Ruling Families of the Gulf States 183 03-02-2007 06:49 PM




Popular Tags
affair best outfit birthday carl gustaf chris o'neill crown princess mary crown princess victoria current events denmark duchess of cambridge style duke of cambridge dutch earl of snowdon fashion poll general news hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duchess stéphanie's fashion & style hereditary grand duke guillaume infanta cristina infanta leonor infanta sofia iñaki urdangarín king abdullah in australia king felipe king felipe vi king philippe king willem-alexander letizia liechtenstein monarchy news official visit picture of the week prince alexander prince carl philip prince daniel prince felix prince gabriel prince harry prince nicholas prince oscar princess beatrice princess claire princess claire of luxembourg princess estelle princess leonore princess madeleine princess of asturias princess sofia princess victoria queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen silvia state visit stephanie sweden swedish royal family united kingdom victoria



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:39 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises