The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #121  
Old 06-08-2005, 01:42 PM
EmpressRouge's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 1,208
Anyone read this Slate article/commentary in defense of Prince Charles and his wedding to Camilla. For all the Camilla-bashers, it's different perspective on their marriage:
Pity the Poor Prince
Charles is atoning for the sins of rich, middle-aged men everywhere.

Poor Prince Charles can't catch a break. He had to postpone his wedding day to accomodate a funeral 900 miles away; devotees of his deceased ex-wife are threatening to picket the nuptials; and wedding memorabilia is selling poorly—apparently, his future subjects don't want to dry their dishes on a towel bearing the likeness of his bride-to-be, Camilla Parker Bowles. His family and fellow royals won't even do him the honor of inventing decent excuses to skip the ceremony—his father refused to cancel a trip to Germany (Germany!); Sweden's crown princess is otherwise engaged opening an IKEA store in Japan—and his mother dashed his dreams of serving an organic feast at the reception.
Charles is an easy and usually deserving target. He's the squarest man in the world, a rich, underemployed old fogy who has dressed and acted like the 56-year-old he is for the last 40 years. But after a lifetime of feckless world travel, dilettantism, and endless chukkas of polo, he's finally coming good. Despite enduring years of unforgivably cruel jokes at the expense of the woman he loves, Charles is about to do something a Frenchman would never consider: He's going to marry his mistress.

If the groom in Saturday's ceremony were Charlie Windsor instead of "His Royal Highness Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales, KG, KT, GCB, OM, AK, QSO, PC, ADC, Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland," he would be a hero—a mensch of modern maturity. But somehow the British press doesn't see it that way. Instead of praising the prince for his devotion, the media have simply intensified the torture, gleefully reporting the many missteps on the way to the wedding.

Apart from doctrinal condsiderations—and since the British sovereign is the head of the Church of England, the royals are expected to be more frum than the person in the next pew—what's wrong with two divorcees correcting the mistakes of their youth and finally getting wed? Just take a look at them: Charles and Camilla are living proof that love is blind. Yes, they committed adultery, but according to veteran royal-watcher Ingrid Seward, the prince didn't resume his connection with Camilla until 1986, when his marriage had suffered an "irretrievable breakdown" and after Diana had cuckolded him at least twice—with Sgt. Barry Mannakee, one of her protection officers, and Maj. James Hewitt, a man she described as "her riding instructor."

Camilla is the anti-Di. Whereas Diana was forever getting her chakras balanced and her colon irrigated, Camilla is self-confident and well-adjusted. Diana was obsessed with the trappings of celebrity, while Camilla, like the royals, prefers to hide her wealth behind a thick veneer of ordinariness. Her main interests are said to be horses, dogs, and farm prices—standard Buckingham Palace talking points, in other words.

Diana was the family student of self-help literature, but it's Charles who has jettisoned his self-defeating behavoirs. In his 20s, when he set out on the long road to the royal rose ceremony, he foolishly listened to the advice of his great-uncle and mentor Lord Mountbatten, who judged Camilla an unsuitable princess because she was older than Charles—by 16 months—and because she was "experienced." Diana may have been a godsend for the House of Windsor's gene pool and for the tabloid press, but she was a terrible match for Charles. Pledging his troth to a Sloane Ranger 12 years his junior with experience of absolutely nothing beyond a little light child-minding worked out annus-horribilisly for the prince of Wales. If Samuel Johnson was right, and second marriages represent the triumph of hope over experience, Charles and Camilla are an exception; in their case it is the long-deferred victory of experience over hope.

In an age when preposterously coiffed tycoons engage in serial matrimony with ever younger and more beautiful partners, Charles is doing his bit to atone for the sins of rich, middle-aged men everywhere. He's making an honest woman of his age-appropriate partner, a woman with whom he is well-matched in looks, habits, and hobbies, whom he has known and loved for more than 30 years. Charles' mistake was to get his weddings out of order: He married his first wife second and his trophy wife first.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2116364
__________________

__________________
Real princesses always wear sleeves so why do we all go for strapless?
  #122  
Old 06-08-2005, 05:33 PM
RoseMary's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: , United States
Posts: 150
Post

gee, Image is everything. Camilla is given a hard time for a good reason. She, like Diana has to prove herself but unlike Diana we were introduced to Camilla as, lets face it an "homewrecker".

I think Camilla is doing an okay job so far but it will take a while. Diana might have had her issues and problems but we first saw and embraced her as an innocent 20 year old, who was in love. It was only after her marriage started to crumble that the public saw all of her problems.

Its sad but true, Camilla has to work harder at her image.
__________________

__________________
If you want something done right, do it yourself.
  #123  
Old 06-08-2005, 07:14 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmpressRouge
He's making an honest woman of his age-appropriate partner, a woman with whom he is well-matched in looks, habits, and hobbies, whom he has known and loved for more than 30 years.
OMG! So funny yet true!
  #124  
Old 06-25-2005, 01:31 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Camilla is doing just fine and will prove herself to be a popular royal and well-accepted as consort of Prince Charles. She is a lovely woman and times have changed. As long as Prince William and Harry are seen to have embraced her, there is no reason why she should not become Queen Consort when Charles becomes King.
  #125  
Old 06-25-2005, 11:32 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,194
But the problem is that the people are still in love with Diana. The people can overthrow the monarchy if they really wanted.
  #126  
Old 06-25-2005, 11:44 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Well, so far it appears they don't really want to.

I think people are far less in love with Diana than they were; her wedding was a quarter of a century ago, her death was nearly 10 years ago, there have been a lot of books written about her, including by friends, that have shown her in a less than purely flattering light, and a lot of people are just tired of the whole business. They seem to be far more interested in Prince William than Charles, Diana, and Camilla these days.
  #127  
Old 06-26-2005, 11:35 PM
sara1981's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North Little Rock, United States
Posts: 3,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
Well, so far it appears they don't really want to.

I think people are far less in love with Diana than they were; her wedding was a quarter of a century ago, her death was nearly 10 years ago, there have been a lot of books written about her, including by friends, that have shown her in a less than purely flattering light, and a lot of people are just tired of the whole business. They seem to be far more interested in Prince William than Charles, Diana, and Camilla these days.
i would agree with you!

Prince Charles and late Diana,Princess of Wales's wedding in 1981 was 24 years ago but almost 25 years of their wedding remind! and her wedding dress display at Althorp they wont sell it!

Princess Diana was buried in 1997 its would be 8 years but now 7 years but im wishes Diana was here! but i never met her before but im miss her very much but she very beautiful Princess and glamorous woman.

i read someone says Althorp will close but im not sure why! but her brother counts people as guests but not enough but need more! but I never went to Althorp but i wanted go see that.

Sara Boyce
  #128  
Old 07-09-2005, 03:51 AM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
I wouldn't go that far. . . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
Well, so far it appears they don't really want to.

I think people are far less in love with Diana than they were; her wedding was a quarter of a century ago, her death was nearly 10 years ago, there have been a lot of books written about her, including by friends, that have shown her in a less than purely flattering light, and a lot of people are just tired of the whole business. They seem to be far more interested in Prince William than Charles, Diana, and Camilla these days.
I wouldn't go that far Elspeth. We are still here and we aren't going away no matter how much you wish we would.

I follow Princes William and Harry. Charles and Camilla are invisible to me.

Also remember, not everything put into print is ABSOLUTE FACT. The Diana haters are still poised to pounce on every word a person writes to make money from the Diana legacy. She has been gone nearly 8 years and still commands much attention.
  #129  
Old 07-09-2005, 03:54 AM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
Camilla does not deserve to be Queen

What does it say for morality when the mistress of the King gets to become Queen?? Wallis Simpson didn't get the "full bag of tricks" and neither should Camilla. She should be happy with the title she has (and doesn't deserve
  #130  
Old 07-09-2005, 04:06 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiaraprin
I wouldn't go that far Elspeth. We are still here and we aren't going away no matter how much you wish we would.

I follow Princes William and Harry. Charles and Camilla are invisible to me.

Also remember, not everything put into print is ABSOLUTE FACT. The Diana haters are still poised to pounce on every word a person writes to make money from the Diana legacy. She has been gone nearly 8 years and still commands much attention.
I don't know where you're getting the idea that I wish the Diana lovers would go away. What I'm saying is that the Diana lovers are a much smaller factor than they were several years ago and will become an increasingly smaller factor as time goes by. For many young people, Diana is part of history, not part of life. That's just the way it is.

As far as what's written not being absolute fact, of course it isn't. But when it comes to the facets of her personality where her friends and partisans say much the same as her detractors about her, I think it isn't unreasonable to believe that there's some truth to it.
  #131  
Old 07-09-2005, 04:15 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
What does it say for morality when the mistress of the King gets to become Queen?? Wallis Simpson didn't get the "full bag of tricks" and neither should Camilla. She should be happy with the title she has (and doesn't deserve).

Sure she deserves it; she's married to the Duke of Cornwall, so she gets the title. That's all a woman has to do in order to deserve it. She isn't his mistress now, she's his wife, and that's the basis on which she shares his title. So far, Buckingham Palace seems to be sticking by the story that she'll be Princess Consort rather than Queen; it remains to be seen what will actually happen. I assume that depends on the timing involved.

Wallis Simpson didn't get to be Queen because Edward VIII abdicated. So far, Charles has stayed in the line of succession and appears to be going to remain so. That the Duchess of Windsor also didn't get to be HRH when she married is a shameful piece of work, of highly dubious legality, perpetrated out of self-righteous spite by people who wanted to punish the pair of them.

Moraganatic marriage doesn't exist in British law. When a woman marries a royal, she also becomes royal and she takes his title. I hope the vindictive actions of the Establishment against the Windsors aren't repeated this time around; they didn't reflect well on anybody in particular.
  #132  
Old 07-09-2005, 11:53 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Camilla IS HRH the Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess Carrick and Baroness Renfrew as the wife of Prince Charles. With the permission of the Queen, she has chosen to be known as HRH the Duchess of Cornwall, instead of her primary rank as Princess of Wales.

All of this nonsense about Diana is ridiculous. The Princess died eight years ago and it's time to move on. Why should Charles and Camilla be denied happiness together just because he is the heir to the throne? Parallels to Wallis, Duchess of Windsor are totally ridiculous. Wallis was a twice-divorced woman in 1936 who was not only the mistress to the King, but another man as well. I hardly think that Camilla could be compared to a Wallis Warfield Simpson. Her character is far more worthy and Diana had many affairs with different men throughout her marriage to Prince Charles.

I suspect if Diana were alive today she certainly would have embraced the notion of Charles marrying Camilla and making her his consort. More likely than not, Diana herself would have remarried by now and as the mother of Prince William, her role in public life was secure.

I see no reason why Camilla should not be Queen Consort when Charles ascends the throne. If not, then the Government can pass legislation to allow her to be HRH the Princess Consort, which I personally think will never happen.
  #133  
Old 07-10-2005, 01:26 AM
sara1981's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North Little Rock, United States
Posts: 3,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg
Camilla IS HRH the Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess Carrick and Baroness Renfrew as the wife of Prince Charles. With the permission of the Queen, she has chosen to be known as HRH the Duchess of Cornwall, instead of her primary rank as Princess of Wales.

All of this nonsense about Diana is ridiculous. The Princess died eight years ago and it's time to move on. Why should Charles and Camilla be denied happiness together just because he is the heir to the throne? Parallels to Wallis, Duchess of Windsor are totally ridiculous. Wallis was a twice-divorced woman in 1936 who was not only the mistress to the King, but another man as well. I hardly think that Camilla could be compared to a Wallis Warfield Simpson. Her character is far more worthy and Diana had many affairs with different men throughout her marriage to Prince Charles.

I suspect if Diana were alive today she certainly would have embraced the notion of Charles marrying Camilla and making her his consort. More likely than not, Diana herself would have remarried by now and as the mother of Prince William, her role in public life was secure.

I see no reason why Camilla should not be Queen Consort when Charles ascends the throne. If not, then the Government can pass legislation to allow her to be HRH the Princess Consort, which I personally think will never happen.
i would not agree with your posts!

but i knew that Camilla cant become POW because follow low profiles of their favourites Princess very much! but Camilla will known as Duchess of Cornwall that it!

Sara Boyce
  #134  
Old 07-10-2005, 01:55 AM
wymanda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by sara1981
i would not agree with your posts!

but i knew that Camilla cant become POW because follow low profiles of their favourites Princess very much! but Camilla will known as Duchess of Cornwall that it!

Sara Boyce
Sara,
Whether you or I like it or not Camilla IS Princess of Wales. In deference to peoples feelings she has chosen "To Be Known As" Duchess of Cornwall.
__________________
Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
  #135  
Old 07-10-2005, 02:11 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
We seem to be going round in circles on this one. Sara, Camilla is Princess of Wales. We can't help it if you don't like the fact, but that doesn't alter anything, so it's pointless to keep saying that she isn't Princess of Wales, because she is. She's simply being called by one of her other titles.
  #136  
Old 07-10-2005, 04:48 AM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
Law vs the Will of the People

To many around the world, Camilla is NOT and NEVER will be the Princess of Wales or Queen of England. Anyone who would curtsey to her, is beyond my comprehension.

Irregardless of the law, it is the people who ultimately make the decision about monarchy and who and what they like about it. A British subject who doesn't like Camilla shouldn't have to curtsey to her or any member of the royal family. I thank God I am an American!
  #137  
Old 07-10-2005, 06:12 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,476
More Circles

Quote:
Originally Posted by tiaraprin
A British subject who doesn't like Camilla shouldn't have to curtsey to her or any member of the royal family. I thank God I am an American!
I don't know how many times it has been stated in these Forums, but like the "Princess of Wales" title, here we go again:

** No one has to curtsey to any member of the Royal Family if that is their choice **

Being an American is quite irrelevant to the issue.
.
  #138  
Old 07-10-2005, 10:44 AM
Ennyllorac's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: , United States
Posts: 1,975
It seems we are beating a dead horse with a stick. Regardless what anyone feels, Camilla is Princess of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall and whatever other title Prince Charles holds.This is a fact. What is the point of continuing to argue about this? Let's move on!
  #139  
Old 07-10-2005, 02:58 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg
I suspect if Diana were alive today she certainly would have embraced the notion of Charles marrying Camilla and making her his consort. More likely than not, Diana herself would have remarried by now and as the mother of Prince William, her role in public life was secure.

I see no reason why Camilla should not be Queen Consort when Charles ascends the throne. If not, then the Government can pass legislation to allow her to be HRH the Princess Consort, which I personally think will never happen.
Although I believe Diana would have moved on with her life and may have remarried possibly even having more children I highly doubt that she would have embraced the idea of Charles marrying Camilla. Diana may have embraced a marraige for Charles had it been any other woman than Camilla simply put not the one he carried on with while he was married to her. I think she would have found it publicly humiliating; to be replaced in the BRF by the the mistress that all the world knew of. :( Just imagine the tension at family gatherings for thier children. (Example: Williams graduation)

If Diana were alive do you really think the public would have supported Charles' & Camilla's union? Even so long after her death I don't - mega public outrage! As a matter a fact I don't see the queen ever considering a marraige for Charles & Camilla at all if Diana were alive.

Since Diana has passed away of course its a different situation but to think that she would be fine and dandy today with the present situation is in my opinion ridiculous.
  #140  
Old 07-10-2005, 03:24 PM
corazon's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: -In some dark place-, Argentina
Posts: 2,080
I agree with you
__________________

__________________
Today the world has embraced new royal Princesses in the form of Mary of Denmark and Maxima of the Netherlands. But it's questionable whether even these hugely popular, increasingly glamorous future Queens will ever capture the world's imagination in the same way as Diana.
As Mario acknowledges: "She really was a true Princess".
-www.theroyalist.net-
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 Part 2 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 General Royal Discussion Archive 17 05-16-2005 09:02 PM
The Great Baby Guessing Challenge Part 3 Alexandria General Royal Discussion Archive 24 04-10-2005 07:33 PM
The Great Baby Guessing Challenge Part 2 Alexandria General Royal Discussion Archive 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 09:13 AM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch state visit e-mail elisabeth fashion poll free hosting grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction member watch monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess beatrice hats princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats prince sverre magnus queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania royal fashion september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden swedish royal family summer portraits 2016 the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:24 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises