The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #261  
Old 08-13-2005, 11:36 PM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by wymanda
Oh Dear, Another conspiracy theory!!

Apart from the fact that even if he felt nothing for her in the end (something I seriously doubt) Charles loves his sons and they are probably the best thing that came out of his marriage to Diana.

While I am in total agreement that his sons are the best thing that came from his marriage, I don't trust any courtiers surrounding any royal. Those men act more royal than the royals!! I believe what Sarah, the Duchess of York said about them. They are the "Grey Men" who are parasitic and swollen to the heights of self-importance. They are going to do anything and everything to keep their cushy power positions. I know they aren't really making any money from being a courtier, but it sure does open many doors that would normally be slammed in their collective faces!!
__________________

__________________
  #262  
Old 08-13-2005, 11:48 PM
wymanda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiaraprin
While I am in total agreement that his sons are the best thing that came from his marriage, I don't trust any courtiers surrounding any royal. Those men act more royal than the royals!! I believe what Sarah, the Duchess of York said about them. They are the "Grey Men" who are parasitic and swollen to the heights of self-importance. They are going to do anything and everything to keep their cushy power positions. I know they aren't really making any money from being a courtier, but it sure does open many doors that would normally be slammed in their collective faces!!
At least they aren't as bad as the Japanese Imperial Household Agency. Fergie would have been locked up somewhere until she produced a son and Diana would probably have had her sons taken away to be raised in the "traditional manner". IMO our royals have much to be thankful for in that while the courtiers may overstep the mark occassionally they have no real power.
__________________

__________________
Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
  #263  
Old 08-14-2005, 12:07 AM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by wymanda
At least they aren't as bad as the Japanese Imperial Household Agency. Fergie would have been locked up somewhere until she produced a son and Diana would probably have had her sons taken away to be raised in the "traditional manner". IMO our royals have much to be thankful for in that while the courtiers may overstep the mark occassionally they have no real power.
Wymanda,

The courtiers have a great deal of power. They run the royal family, not the royal family runs them. It is their opinions, feelings that run the whole system. You have to be one strong person to stand up to those buffoons and keep your place within the family. Not many have that strength. While they do not dare to upset Her Majesty, they make life a living **** for the lesser Royals down the scale. This is one area I agree with the former Lord Altrincham!
__________________
  #264  
Old 08-14-2005, 02:29 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 802
Ross Benson died unexpectedly of a heart attack. He was a journalist for the “Daily Express” and they featured a one page obituary on him, the information I previously posted on him came from that obituary. ( I get the International version of the Daily Express) As he was a well-known journalist other British newspapers all featured detailed obituaries on his life and career, including the information of how he used a tenuous link to Prince Charles early in his career.

If Ross Benson is reported in the US as being a friend of Prince Charles then that is due more to sloppy journalism and lazy reporting and ‘let’s not let facts get in the way of a good story’ than anything else. Undoubtedly when he first began writing a society column the newspaper he worked for promoted the fact he and Prince Charles had been at school together, the inference being they were friends and Ross Benson could deliver the scoop on royal news. But Ross Benson himself never claimed a friendship and later wrote about Charles’ time at Gourdonston and what a terrible time the other students gave Charles, Ross Benson admitted he too had given him a rough time. He also went on the record to explain how he used his link with Charles to forward his career.

For the most part Charles’ school years were miserable and I doubt if he were friends with anyone he went to Gourdonston with. Charles himself has stated that the only time he was happy at school was when he came to Australia to attend Timbertop, he was due to stay a term and enjoyed the experience so much he stayed nearly a year. Earlier this year Charles attended a reunion in Melbourne with his former Timbertop roommate, who was genuine school friend and has continued to be a friend of Charles. (And has never spoken to the media)

During his years as a royal correspondent Ross Benson had more contact with Diana than he did with Charles. Again this is on the record, Diana would invite royal correspondents to lunch to discuss coverage of her, he was one of the correspondents she included, she also invited the editors of the major British tabloids to Kensington Palace. These meetings have all been written about, just check newspaper archives.



As much as it amuses me to read the royal soap opera that people love to perpetuate I’d have to say “People it’s time to move on”!!!!!
__________________
  #265  
Old 08-14-2005, 05:00 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiaraprin
Wymanda,

The courtiers have a great deal of power. They run the royal family, not the royal family runs them.
The courtiers don't have as much power as they used to. I think the Queen has taken it back from them. The Queen was very influenced by them earlier though-especially Winston Churchill in the beginning who advised her to drop Mountbatten from the family name and cut Philip's public role. This caused a lot of problems for the family.

Right now its a bit late to be talking about who's in Diana's camp vs Charles camp. While the marriage was breaking up, yes, there were camps but people move on. Right now it seems that a lot of Diana-bashing is going on but that I think is because when she was alive people took her word as the absolute truth. People are realizing that its never a good idea to believe everything a husband or wife tells you when they're going through a nasty breakup like this. Its just common sense not to.
__________________
  #266  
Old 08-14-2005, 11:18 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel
The courtiers don't have as much power as they used to. I think the Queen has taken it back from them. The Queen was very influenced by them earlier though-especially Winston Churchill in the beginning who advised her to drop Mountbatten from the family name and cut Philip's public role. This caused a lot of problems for the family.
I'm not so sure this is really true. The Sovereign is a symbol of the power of the state, vested in the majority party in the House of Commons through the Prime Minister, who exercises the royal perogative. In order for this to continue, there has to be control over the Sovereign and their activities. This is why the Queen cannot even speak on a matter publicly that the Government hasn't approved or written for her.

I doubt very much the power of the Royal Household has diminished in any way. If anything, under the presidential style of Tony Blair, their ability to utilize the Crown probably has increased.
__________________
  #267  
Old 08-14-2005, 11:35 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
I think we're talking about two different things branchg. I was referring to the courtiers in Buckingham Palace so maybe Winston Churchill was a bad example because of course he was not.

As far as the monarch's role with the government ministers, of course, the government is having more control over areas the Queen previously had. But with internal family affairs the Queen appears to be taking more control. Sometimes the two areas overlap like with Charles' and Camilla's marriage. But no matter what you think of the marriage, it provided a constitutional problem for the government that they would have rather not had to face. If Charles had not gotten full support from the Queen, the marriage wouldn't have happened.
__________________
  #268  
Old 08-14-2005, 01:19 PM
emily62_1's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Roma, Italy
Posts: 285
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by blondebeauty123
We all know the story of Prince Charles and Lady Diana, but I was just wondering what you guys thought about this subject. Diana did love Charles but Charles had his love stored for someone other than Diana. I have always wondered what do you think what would happened if Charles hadn't rekindled his relashionship with Camilla with his marriage with Diana? They both loved each other in the beginning but that did not last very long. I have always wondered this also why did Charles marry Diana if he really loved Camilla all a long? He hurt Diana so by having love else where.
I am sure Charles never loved Diana, it's worldwide known that Camilla was the 1 who advised charles to marry diana, they both thought she was not an obstacle to their relationship, true Queen Mum and Lady Fermoy, di's grandmum, thought of a wed btw Charles and Di, but Camilla gave her lover her ok, so while I think di was in love with Charles, he was not, all he wanted from her was a heir, when Harry, the spare heir, was born, the realtionship btw the couple soon ended, and Cam became again, she had never left indeed, officially his lover.
__________________
  #269  
Old 08-14-2005, 01:24 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by emily62_1
I am sure Charles never loved Diana, it's worldwide known that Camilla was the 1 who advised charles to marry diana, they both thought she was not an obstacle to their relationship, true Queen Mum and Lady Fermoy, di's grandmum, thought of a wed btw Charles and Di, but Camilla gave her lover her ok, so while I think di was in love with Charles, he was not, all he wanted from her was a heir, when Harry, the spare heir, was born, the realtionship btw the couple soon ended, and Cam became again, she had never left indeed, officially his lover.
I simply do not believe this. Diana herself stated that Charles did love her and they were both responsible for the failure of their marriage. Camilla was a symptom of the problem, just like James Hewitt was.
__________________
  #270  
Old 08-19-2005, 07:49 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
I agree with Branchq. I do not believe in speaking ill of the dead. Therefore I will only say that I believe Prince Charles was more sinned against than sinning. Of course adultery is always wrong. It would appear that both spouses in this marriage committed that sin.

They ought never to have married in the first place, as Charles always loved Camilla. But we are all sinners, so I don't think too much mud should be thrown at either Diana or Charles.
__________________
  #271  
Old 08-19-2005, 10:13 PM
wymanda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,433
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frothy
I agree with Branchq. I do not believe in speaking ill of the dead. Therefore I will only say that I believe Prince Charles was more sinned against than sinning. Of course adultery is always wrong. It would appear that both spouses in this marriage committed that sin.

They ought never to have married in the first place, as Charles always loved Camilla. But we are all sinners, so I don't think too much mud should be thrown at either Diana or Charles.
Well Said!
On that note I think the Administration should close this thread. IMO its just going around in circles and is just an excuse to "Have a go" at Camilla.
__________________
Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
  #272  
Old 08-19-2005, 10:32 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
I'd prefer not to close the thread as long as people are still interested in the discussion and keeping their cool. However, if it attracts many more cases of people repeating unsubstantiated gossip as though it were set-in-rock fact, that'll change matters in a hurry.
__________________
  #273  
Old 11-03-2005, 01:00 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlightrhapsody
you don't start a relationship without ending the one you're in. And by ending a marriage, I mean divorce or death. Can you imagine being a child and being humiliated in front of the press because of your parents' indiscretions?
Do your comments also apply to Diana who caused her children such anguish when she co wrote a book with Morton? Nor did she wait for death or divorce before taking the first of her lovers.
As more and more has come out about Diana it is clear that she had more than 3 or 4 lovers while she was married. Prince Charles clearly said that he only started the affair when his marriage was over, now believed to be in 1986 (although James Hewitt infered his affair with Diana started after her honeymoon in 1981).
Neither of them were in love with each other. Diana wanted the titles, Charles wanted an heir.
__________________
  #274  
Old 11-03-2005, 01:03 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,197
Okay..so now James Hewitt is the expert on all that is Diana. That is extremely bogus that the affair started in 1981. And how do you know for a fact that Diana wanted to marry Charles strictly for the title? I would be interested in knowing your sources.
__________________
  #275  
Old 11-03-2005, 01:16 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk1189
Okay..so now James Hewitt is the expert on all that is Diana. That is extremely bogus that the affair started in 1981. And how do you know for a fact that Diana wanted to marry Charles strictly for the title? I would be interested in knowing your sources.
Well James Hewitt was there and both admitted to the affair, so I think he knows a fair bit more than most. When he was on tv he said that is when the affair started (under hypnosis). I believe him because afterwards he said he was sticking to the date that was 'common knowledge' ie 1986.
He is already reviled so why would he say something to make it worse for him.
Would it make it easier for you if I say that in my opinion they did not love each other. Diana wanted the titles, Charles an heir!
__________________
  #276  
Old 11-03-2005, 02:35 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
I think it's been shown that hypnosis isn't a way of getting completely reliable information. This whole business about repressed memories is a very dicey affair, scientifically speaking.

Warren's salt cellar should be liberally applied here.
__________________
  #277  
Old 11-03-2005, 02:37 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,197
Elspeth..I am trying to use it but it getting caught in my throat!
__________________
  #278  
Old 11-03-2005, 02:45 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
I think it's been shown that hypnosis isn't a way of getting completely reliable information. This whole business about repressed memories is a very dicey affair, scientifically speaking.

Warren's salt cellar should be liberally applied here.
LOL! Too funny, but yes, it could get a little rough.
__________________
  #279  
Old 11-03-2005, 03:22 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade
LOL! Too funny, but yes, it could get a little rough.
I am not being nasty when I ask what Lol means?
__________________
  #280  
Old 11-03-2005, 03:26 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
I think it's been shown that hypnosis isn't a way of getting completely reliable information.
Possibly, but we will have to agree to having different views on that. I was trying to show, more than anything, that as Hewitt and Diana admitted to an affair, Hewitt would know more about Diana than any of us.:)
__________________

__________________
Closed Thread

Tags
camilla, diana princess of wales, duchess of cornwall, prince charles, prince of wales, princess diana, relationships


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
Diana/Charles/Camilla's Relationships Part2 Warren The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 935 12-07-2005 07:49 PM
The Great Baby Guessing Challenge Part 4 Alexandria Royal Chit Chat 17 05-16-2005 08:02 PM
The Great Baby Guessing Challenge Part 3 Alexandria Royal Chit Chat 24 04-10-2005 06:33 PM
The Great Baby Guessing Challenge Part 2 Alexandria Royal Chit Chat 7 03-06-2005 12:20 PM
King Carl XVI Gustaf and Queen Silvia, Current Events Part 1: November 2002-June 2004 Josefine Current Events Archive 300 06-12-2004 08:13 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch royal history engagement fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern 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 olympic games ottoman picture of the month poland pom president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:35 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]