Diana/Charles/Camilla's Relationships Part 1

[Dennism]

Originally Posted by Genevieve

What a horribly crass thing to say.

Yes, very true but it´s also a famous quote and I believe Bubbette was just quoting.

[lashinka2002]

Love your post Moonlightrhapsody!

[Reina]

Yep. You've got history to back your claim up.

Originally Posted by Bubbette

No. When a man marries his mistress he creates a job opening.

[lashinka2002]

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




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

[Elspeth]

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.

[susan alicia]

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.

Originally Posted by Elspeth

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.

[Warren]

Originally Posted by lashinka2002

I found this on Al Fayed's web site:

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.
.

[Yennie]

Mr AlFayed is patetic. Who is he to be the spokesperson for Diana or anybody else?!
No his 15 minute of fame is over (yes I know he is a well known buissnessman and owner of Harrods) But what has that to do with Diana?
She spend a couple of months with his son... thats it...

and is he a racist to?! this line is just so

Her husband, the German/Greek/Russian Duke of Edinburgh (what did the Scots do to deserve that

and last: Charles is after all just human. And we all deserves to be happy. He must really care for Camilla, they have been in love, for what, 35 years?
Yes he made a terrible misstake by cheating and there is no excuse for what he put Diana through, but I think we must all let go and realise that Charles and Camilla are happy together.

[chrissy57]

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.

[susan alicia]

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.

Originally Posted by chrissy57

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.

[auroraDaniel]

very well said. i agree with you 100%.

[Elspeth]

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.

[Bubbette]

Pretty funny, but he needs to get out more if he thinks the underwear thing is weird; a lot of guys are into that.

[Elspeth]

Possibly because of what happened to King Edward.

[kobe]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Possibly because of what happened to King Edward.

If he is affraid because of what happen to Edward, than he put his fear above his love for Camilia. That's human but in the end no matter the reason why Charles did not stand up to his parents, the person that paid for his decision was not him but Diana. Diana, unlike Charles, never got the happy ending. And that makes have negative feelings towards Charles & Camilia.
Also King Bhumibol of Thailand stood up to the military that could have easily killed him when necessary and for that he was able to bring about stability to Thailand. So, what I am trying to say is that yes it is hard to defy those we love, especially our parents whose approval means the world to some of us, yet people, not just kings or princes, make these decisions every single day.

[lashinka2002]

Originally Posted by kobe

So, what I am trying to say is that yes it is hard to defy those we love, especially our parents whose approval means the world to some of us, yet people, not just kings or princes, make these decisions every single day.

Very good statement! You also earn respect when you stand up for what you believe in. Charles doesn't seem to have any respect.

[gaggleofcrazypeople]

Originally Posted by lashinka2002

Very good statement! You also earn respect when you stand up for what you believe in. Charles doesn't seem to have any respect.

For Diana?

[sara1981]

Originally Posted by gaggleofcrazypeople

For Diana?

yeah i think so! but Diana needs big needs! than Camilla and Sophie because Diana is popular Princess! that unfair for Camilla and Sophie!

Sara Boyce

[Reina]

Yeah Diana refused them before. I guess that was a step in her gaining her independence. Can't blame someone for trying to do that.

[james]

I think that a lot of damage has come from this "marraige" because Charles has underestimated or rather, ignored, the country's feelings on the matter and the long term casualty will be the institution of Monarchy itself because it has undeniably lost a great deal of respect because of it.