Diana/Charles/Camilla's Relationships Part 1


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually more than the charisma factor I think it was the age difference that really made them grow apart. Love in a marriage is not always about passion. It can be in the form of understanding and respect, and love for children. For Charles, getting married to Diana was a compromise and the fact that they got swamped with royal duties and children so early before really getting to know each other and solidifying what they had, just made them apart.

And as much Diana is considered the innocent and naive party, I believe that her tendency to romantacize the whole scenario was that landed her in this mess. She settled too early, I don't whether it was the parents-situation or the whole Prince-situation, but she was too young and immature at first to deal with the realities of married life.

And later, they really went for divergent paths.

But atleast I am happy that Charles took the step of marrying Camilla. People go on and on about the way he gave Diana a raw deal, We will never know maybe he did, but atleast he had the decency to give the proper respect to Camilla who has stood by him all these years.
 
capricorninin said:
People go on and on about the way he gave Diana a raw deal, We will never know maybe he did, but atleast he had the decency to give the proper respect to Camilla who has stood by him all these years.


He did give Diana a raw deal. She didn't even stand a snowball's chance in hell having Charles love her. Come on, his mistress was in the church when they got married! Then he was wearing cufflinks Camilla gave him on his honeymoon with no deferrence for his new wife.

I don't care what anyone says, you don't (re)start a relationship without ending the one you're in. And by ending a marriage, I mean divorce or death. If Charles wasn't as spineless as he was, the I wouldn't have had an issue about him marrying Camilla back in the late '70s and Diana might have had a happier marriage.

And another thing I've been saying for a long time now. Just because Charles "loved" Camilla, doesn't give him the right to hurt and disrespect his wife, Diana, to humiliate his sons, and to outright flaunt his escapades to Andrew Parker-Bowles. Love doesn't justify hurtful actions. No one has the right to cause other people such anguish on account of falling in-love. He made his bed, he should have laid on it!

As for Camilla, she made the decision to give Charles up when she married Andrew Parker-Bowles, who was Charles' friend, by the way. When she saw Charles get married, she should have closed that chapter and kept it closed. Charles and Diana's marriage becoming "irretrievably broken down" is no justifiable reason for her to resume her affair with Charles. "Broken down" is not the same as divorced. He was not free to pursue a relationship with her, and then again, neither was she! I don't think she thought about her children or Charles' children. Can you imagine being a child and being humiliated in front of the press because of your parents' indiscretions? That your mother was cheating on your father with your god-father?

To me, their marriage seems like a reward for their indiscretions for the past 30 years, for hurting so many people. They made their vows to love, honor, and cherish, and to remain faithful to each other? How long with that one last? Didn't they make that promise before and broke it? Maybe we should all reward adulterers in the future, worked for Charles and Camilla. Heck, maybe people need to have an affair if they're not happy with their spouses and their family lives! After all, Camilla got to become princess and would be a queen and Charles would still be "Defender of the Faith". Faith?! Ha! The hypocracy! Nothing's sacred anymore...
 
Last edited:
Camilla and Charles a respectful marriage!?!

We all know the classic fairytail marriage between Lady Diana and Prince Charles... Or do we? We will never know what went on between Diana and Charles and personally I don't want to know. That was their personal life that I could never understand. During Diana's marriage with Charles she said she had "tremendous hopes in her heart for him and her" well those hopes we crushed not very long after they said their "I do's." Charles hurt Diana deeply and he never even felt sorry for his indescretions toward his marriage vows. He said that he always cared for Camilla and his love was stocked away not for Diana but for the mistress Camilla. He made plenty of excuses for having an affair but the truth is their is no excuse. He made it clear of how he felt for Camilla and Diana. I think their marriage was a lesson we all should learn from. I personally dislike Camilla but I hope that Charles and her have a happy marriage full of bliss and happiness!??? What is wrong with that picture? I don't think it is fair for the sacred vows of marriage and certainly Diana to have them marry. Diana never had a stable loving marriage that she wished for all her life. Diana just wanted to be loved by somebody much less her husband! Diana deserved a better marriage but for she never got another one!!!!! Yet cheating charles had another one. I think their marriage was sort of a hypocricy! What are they going to do next?! Pretty soon marriage will be a "thing" where people moch. Marriage is about comitting to someone for life and honoring them and loving them and becoming one in the eyes of god!! I loved Diana as our dear princess and I can only imagine what her face must of looked like when she saw Charles marrying Camilla. Charles is loving the very person who caused Diana soooooo much pain and disgression. " This is my opinion and if you get offended in any way I am sorry."
 
I agree your posts,blondebeauty123

but Prince Charles and late Diana,Princess of Wales got first married in 1981 but both got failures because both had affairs and Charles go see Camilla since Harry's birth in 1984 but Diana dont like it! and Diana got affairs with James Hewitt and lots more with man!

I dont like Camilla lots! because she got homewrecker since the Wales got married in 1981 and she meet Prince Charles at his home and Diana getting pissed off at Charles for that!

but i know that Prince Charles still loves with Camilla i understand for more over 30 years since both met at party and both been still as mistress,companion and affairs and Charles been dating Diana's 2 older sister before Diana.

Sara Boyce
 
I would say Charles and camilla's story is a fairytale, but hold on, the happily everafter is not done yet? Next installment, Please.
 
i tell you! Princess Diana is fairytales in first places but Camilla dont!

Sara Boyce
 
lori said:
I would say Charles and camilla's story is a fairytale, but hold on, the happily everafter is not done yet? Next installment, Please.

Charles did tell Diana he wouldn't be the only Prince of Wales without a mistress. Now that's he married the mistress does that hold true?
 
rear photos

:) Hey Guys,

There is an article about Charles and Camilla and some rear photoes, when Camilla was young she was not bad looking , she looked kind of cute. I will try scan them tomorrow. Till then here are some others.
 

Attachments

  • charles1.jpg
    charles1.jpg
    49.6 KB · Views: 987
  • char2.jpg
    char2.jpg
    41 KB · Views: 749
  • char3.jpg
    char3.jpg
    42.3 KB · Views: 845
Last edited:
What a horribly crass thing to say.

Well, their whole situation is just shameful in my eyes. The fact that they married doesn't erase the past. Plus, past actions are a pretty good indication of future behavior; who's to say he won't do it again? When someone cheats, the chances are stacked in the favor of a repeat of the behavior. And, statistically speaking, marriages made from the collapse of a previous marriage only have about a 5% success rate, meaning out of 100 couples, only 5 make it. Pretty bleak odds, wouldn't you say?
 
Genevieve said:
What a horribly crass thing to say. :mad:

Yes, very true but it´s also a famous quote and I believe Bubbette was just quoting.
 
Not likely

Moonlightrhapsody said:
Well, their whole situation is just shameful in my eyes. And, statistically speaking, marriages made from the collapse of a previous marriage only have about a 5% success rate, meaning out of 100 couples, only 5 make it. Pretty bleak odds, wouldn't you say?

I may be mistaken, but it appears that some of us are actively hoping for the Charles/Camilla marriage to fail.

However, considering they have known each other for over thirty years, and have gone through thick and thin together to finally "reach the altar", I think the hopes for an early divorce might not only be misplaced, but doomed to disappointment.
.
 
Warren said:
I may be mistaken, but it appears that some of us are actively hoping for the Charles/Camilla marriage to fail.

However, considering they have known each other for over thirty years, and have gone through thick and thin together to finally "reach the altar", I think the hopes for an early divorce might not only be misplaced, but doomed to disappointment.
.

And I may be mistaken but there's nothing around this thread that even mentions the hope that they'd divorce. Now, how it's interpreted is up to the public.

I'm mentioning statistics here. Statistics and probability can try to predict the future. I'm not saying that they can't beat the odds, but the odds are pretty high. I wouldn't gamble on a card game that only gives me 5 wins out of 100.
 
The difference is that most of these couples don't have over 30 years of togetherness behind them. Even if we discount the periods of fidelity to their respective spouses these two have been together for well over 20 years together before getting married, which does increase the chances of success.
 
Statistically speaking...

Moonlightrhapsody said:
And I may be mistaken but there's nothing around this thread that even mentions the hope that they'd divorce. Now, how it's interpreted is up to the public.

I'm mentioning statistics here. Statistics and probability can try to predict the future. I'm not saying that they can't beat the odds, but the odds are pretty high. I wouldn't gamble on a card game that only gives me 5 wins out of 100.

Perhaps it was all in the context? :)
.
 
yes, those odds are for people who get divorced, marry a person they have known a bit and and after the inlove feeling diminishes and real love has to kick in they discover that they might just a well could have stayed with their first partner. They encounter the same difficuties.

C&C have proven that they really want to be together, and now they are.

chrissy57 said:
The difference is that most of these couples don't have over 30 years of togetherness behind them. Even if we discount the periods of fidelity to their respective spouses these two have been together for well over 20 years together before getting married, which does increase the chances of success.
 
Even if Charles and Camilla decided at some point down the line that they'd made a mistake in getting married (which seems to me to be unlikely, but one never knows), I don't think they'd let it be known in public; it would be too damaging.
 
Yep. You've got history to back your claim up.

Bubbette said:
No. When a man marries his mistress he creates a job opening.
 
I found this on Al Fayed's web site and had to share it!
I thought it was quite amusing!
His views on Charles and Camillas wedding



spacer.gif

People keep asking me what I think of the royal wedding.

Frankly, I would rather not think at all about Big Ears and Crocodilla making their marriage vows over the grave of Diana, Princess of Wales, a woman whose grace, charm and sheer goodness ought to shame her ex-husband and his mistress.

Of course Prince Charles is too arrogant to feel true remorse over the cruel way in which he and Mrs. Parker Bowles deceived Diana and drove her to the edge of despair.

A decent man would not be marrying the woman whose unprincipled behaviour helped to break up a marriage in which the real casualties were two little boys who were suddenly deprived of their happiness and security.

The selfishness of Charles makes me sick. If you are born a Prince, the privilege comes as standard. But in return you have to show nobility, leadership and, when required, self sacrifice.

The motto of every Prince of Wales is "Ich dien", German for "I serve". Charles is intent only on serving himself. He is willful. He has to have his own way. His mother, The Queen, was and is very much against his marriage to Mrs. Parker Bowles. She knows that it reflects very badly on her family and on the institution of monarchy.

Her husband, the German/Greek/Russian Duke of Edinburgh (what did the Scots do to deserve that?) cannot stand his petulant son and thinks he is a real moaner and whinger. He hardly ever speaks to him. He can hardly bear to look at him. He regards him as a loser. On this and only on this, I find myself in agreement with Phil the Greek.

I am told that both the Queen and her husband would have avoided the wedding if there had been any way of getting out of it. I understand that other members of the royal family would have done likewise. It is interesting that very few members of European royal houses will be present at the Guildhall in Windsor.

I applaud their principled stand. Why would anybody in their right mind want to attend a hole-in-the-corner affair in the smallest room available in a small building?

Why a small room? So that the Prince can pack it with his friends who will take up the seats meant for the general public. Why is this so important? Because otherwise, someone would almost certainly have raised an objection when the Registrar asked if there was any "good cause" why the marriage should not go ahead.

Of course there are plenty of good causes and both parties to the marriage know what they are. They conspired against Diana even as she was having her final fitting for her wedding dress.

She was only 20, an innocent girl, going into her marriage with every intention of making her husband happy and serving this country; I know her; she was a real patriot who would have done anything for the people of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth.

Behind her back, Charles and his mistress cheated on her before the wedding and were even enjoying intimate telephone conversations during the honeymoon. Five years after the wedding, and after Diana had given birth to two strong and healthy sons, it was well known to the royal media corps that Charles was once again conducting a full-blown affair with Mrs. Parker Bowles.

Charles could have married Camilla in 1972, nine years before Diana was sacrificed on the royal altar for his convenience. Why on earth didn't he do it? It would have saved everybody an awful lot of trouble and Diana would be alive and happy today, free from the curse of the Windsors.

Diana was more royal than her husband. She was directly descended from Kind Charles 11, the Merry Monarch. Prince Charles, in contrast, is the progeny of German princlings and a classic example of what happens when there is in-breeding in humans: a distinctly odd look and an adled brain.

What is Camilla Parker Bowles? I remember her father running an off licence in Mayfair. There is nothing wrong with trade and I like it when people call me a shop-keeper or "the Egyptian grocer". It doesn't offend me; quite the contrary. But Mrs. PB behaves as if her family have always been part of the aristocracy. With that strange deep voice of hers, I am wondering if she is really a man in drag. She is certainly going to be a gift to all the female impersonators we have in this odd country.

Prince Charles was educated beyond his intelligence or else he would be able to see hoiw runous his conduct has been. He and Mrs. Parker Bowles are the most successful recruiting sergeants Republic has ever had. Republic is the pressure group campaiging for an elected head of state in Britain and an end to the medievel system of hereditary succession, from one member of the Mountbatten-Windsor family to another.

It is always a bad idea if controversy surrounds a wedding. If the wedding is a royal one, then it is almost always disastrous. A large per centage of the British people do not like the idea of Charles marrying Camilla Parker Bowles simply because they know how badly Diana was treated by them. They are right to be outraged.

Do you know, Diana told me that her husband carried around with him a pair of Mrs. Parker Bowles' underpants which he sniffed from time to time. Is that disgusting or what? Talk about feral. The man is no better than a dog in the street and yet he wants as to regard him as a prince of the royal blood. Talking of which, he was the man who said he wanted to be Mrs. PB's tampax. Even since, the Italian press have called him "Il Tampaccino".

And to think, he regularly stands up and tell the rest of us hows to behave. If it was not so sad, you would have to laugh.

I don't care what happens to Charles and his mistress now. If they had the decency to go away to Highgrove and live a private life there, I would say that that was okay, in the circumstances. He could mooch around his garden and they both could ride with the local hunt; truly the unpseakable in pursuit of the uneatable, as Oscar Wilde put it so brilliantly.

If they had any feelings at all, they would retire from public life. The Prince's great uncle, the Duke of Windsor, did just that when he felt he had to marry a divorced woman, in his case Mrs. Wallis Simpson. I could respect the Duke of Windsor and the Duchess for the exemplary way in which they lived their lives of exile.

That is not enough for Prince Charles, of course. He wants his wife and he wants the crown, even though that means wishing for the death of his mother. And believe you me, when the time comes he will want us all to call his wife Queen Camilla.

Just as I and many members of foreign royalty believe that the Windsor wedding may actually be illegal (and that's why they are not coming), it would be illegal for Camilla not be Queen if Charles came to the throne. Of course, secretly, he does want her to be Queen Camilla.

He has not been frank about that because he knows that many people would be horried and would simply not accept it. However, he thinks in time we will get used to it and he will get his way when, eventually, he succeeds to the throne.

Just as there has been a step-by-step introduction of Mrs. PB to the wider world, so there will be a step-by-step softening up process to get an increasingly indifferent public to accept Queen Camilla.

Already, it is revealed that Camilla will be Princess of Wales, which was at first denied by Charles' PR team at Clarence House. Charles must think that we are as stupid as he is.

It is a nightmare but the worst horrors will be visited upon the House of Mountbatten-Windsor and its dopey Prince. Most of the 60 countries of the Commonwealth will reject Charles if he is forced upon them as the titular Head of the Commonwealth. Most of the 16 countries that welcome the Queen as Head of State will simply say "No, thanks" to King Charles and Queen Camilla.

When the history of monarchy in Britain is written, from Alfred the Great to the 21st. Century, Prince Charles will be identified as the single figure who did most to destroy it, because of a woman who does not even have beauty to recommend her.

More than 50 years ago, the last king of Egypt, Farouk, predicted that in 100 years time, there would be only five kings left in the world: "The kings of hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades and the King of England". I do not think we shall have to wait that long to see the downfall of the British monarchy if Charles continues to have his way.

All that decent British people can do is to mean it when they sing "God Save the Queen". If the Queen lives as long as her mother, it may be that she outlives her stupid eldest son and the succession passes to King William the Fifth.

If so, the first thing I predict he will do as King is to restore posthumously to his mother the title Her Royal Highness. No one deserved the honour more than Diana, Princess of Wales and the stripping of the title from her was the defining act of a royal family that had lost the plot and the love of the people.

So, a plague on the Prince and his crocodile; let us always just remember Diana as the lovely person she was and will always be. She loved my son. He loved her. My whole family will always love Diana.

Here's the link if anyone wants to check it out
http://www.alfayed.com/details.asp?aid=145
 
Something tells me that King William the Fifth won't be counting Mohamed Al Fayed among his closest friends and advisors, regardless of the protestations of support. William seems to be quite close to both his father and his grandfather (I wonder why Al Fayed forgot to mention, in that list of nationalities, that Prince Philip is a great deal more Danish than Greek, German, or Russian), and I assume he knows the circumstances under which his mother died, in a Fayed-owned car driven by a Fayed employee who wasn't a professional driver and was under the influence, taking orders from a Fayed son. No wonder he's trying to deflect the blame.
 
Pretty funny, but he needs to get out more if he thinks the underwear thing is weird; a lot of guys are into that.
 
I hate to break this to you but Charles did cheat on Camilla and Diana with even another woman and another after her. I think he is just one big Playboy that will never fully be satisfied with one woman. Also the likes of this situation tell you that since he's the Prince of Wales he thinks he can play around more than other men. He thinks that since he's the Prince he can hurt other people and throw their feelings to the ground for his. I am not very found of him at all. My opinion is that he probably will cheat or ooops I might be mistaken he is probably too old to get another mistress.!
 
blondebeauty123 said:
I hate to break this to you but Charles did cheat on Camilla and Diana with even another woman and another after her. I think he is just one big Playboy that will never fully be satisfied with one woman. Also the likes of this situation tell you that since he's the Prince of Wales he thinks he can play around more than other men. He thinks that since he's the Prince he can hurt other people and throw their feelings to the ground for his. I am not very found of him at all. My opinion is that he probably will cheat or ooops I might be mistaken he is probably too old to get another mistress.!

I am not familiar with a third woman in Charles' life during his marriage to Diana and relationship with Camilla. Could you please provide a name and articles to support your notion that there was a third woman in Charles' life with whom he was also cheating on Diana with as well as Camilla?
 
alexandria,

on the weddingday of charles and camilla the bbc presenters had guests to chat with about the wedding and one women, penny "something", she has written books about charles, diana and or camilla said that she did not buy the fairy tale that charles and camilla had not had other lovers besides each other.

It surprised me. But maybe middle aged english have a wilder life than we can imagine.

Alexandria said:
I am not familiar with a third woman in Charles' life during his marriage to Diana and relationship with Camilla. Could you please provide a name and articles to support your notion that there was a third woman in Charles' life with whom he was also cheating on Diana with as well as Camilla?
 
there is a lot of offensive stuff in his piece,
at his defense, imagine he is a heartbrokken man about the death of his son and he has a certain background where they express themselve like that. Read this posting after a certain middel eastern thread on this website was making me unhappy and got a bit of the same.

about the car and the employee, diana was too unprotected, she might have received some more protection from the royals/english government, one of the reasons she was being harrassed was partly because she was the ex wife of.

Elspeth said:
Something tells me that King William the Fifth won't be counting Mohamed Al Fayed among his closest friends and advisors, regardless of the protestations of support. William seems to be quite close to both his father and his grandfather (I wonder why Al Fayed forgot to mention, in that list of nationalities, that Prince Philip is a great deal more Danish than Greek, German, or Russian), and I assume he knows the circumstances under which his mother died, in a Fayed-owned car driven by a Fayed employee who wasn't a professional driver and was under the influence, taking orders from a Fayed son. No wonder he's trying to deflect the blame.
 
Name-calling

lashinka2002 said:
I found this on Al Fayed's web site:
spacer.gif

People keep asking me what I think of the royal wedding.
Frankly, I would rather not think at all about Big Ears and Crocodilla ...
So, a plague on the Prince and his crocodile

Wow, another reasoned and intelligent contribution to the debate, eh?

Perhaps the pathetic name-calling reflects more on Mr Al Fayed than it does on the targets of his bile.
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom