Should Camilla attend the memorial service for Diana?

[Al_bina]

Two things should happen immediately. First, Camilla should be given her proper, legal title, and second, Sir Michael Peat should be sacked! He should have been sent packing after the embarrassing mess he made of the wedding plans.

You may be right about sacking Sir Peat. However, any changes with the titles right now would be a tactical mistake. Spurred by the recent controversy, ungovernable passions still run high and may have a negatively impact on the future situation.

 

[Bosana]

You know what I would like to know (but I know we never will)?

Why was Charles so stubborn in his insistence that Camilla attend the memorial? They weren't friends...they had a nasty history...and even if you really don't like Diana, think about this (and I really need everyone to take Camilla/Diana/Charles out of the equation)

You have a friend, who is a divorced man/woman (whose ex has died). One of the reasons (cause there are a couple) you divorced is due to an affair that you had while married. You have since remarried the woman in question. The sons you had with your 1st wife are having a memorial. Do you insist that the 2nd wife attend the memorial?

Oh so true...oh so logical.

But we're dealing with Charles here, bless him. It's all about HIS wants and needs. I don't think its a matter of "support". i.e. that he would be so overcome with emotion at the memorial, that he would need her hand to hold. It's more that he demands that HIS wife, now that he has achieved the monumental task of marrying her, is accorded proper respect and attention due to her as his spouse, regardless of the circumstances. To do this, he was even willing, perhaps not consciously, to put Camilla in an untenable position. Camilla was very astute, accepted the invitation to show that she was willing to go (and probably horrified at the thought!)....and then pulled the plug.

 

[branchg]

But Camilla chose to be known as DOC so what really is the point of arguing over it. And the woman will be queen one day.

Exactly. Camilla chose to marry Charles, knowing the baggage she would have to carry, and accepted concessions to the memory of Diana as the price for membership.

If she makes it to the Coronation, she will be Queen, assuming the public doesn't turn on her husband again, which is by no means certain, is it?

 

[BeatrixFan]

But we're dealing with Charles here, bless him. It's all about HIS wants and needs.

HE will be King. King. Not a stripper, celebrity, TV presenter or drag queen - KING. And that comes with its needs.

 

[Polly]

But Camilla chose to be known as DOC so what really is the point of arguing over it. And the woman will be queen one day.

Maybe she did, maybe she was told that it was 'wise' while the title itself carried so much emotional baggage. Who knows?

In any event, it's time for Camilla to be afforded the full dignities of her position. It's also past time for her husband to stand for more than an eye to the immediate popularity polls and pay more than lipservice to his wife's value and importance to him. Although I'm a long term fan of Prince Charles', I'm truly glad that I've never been married to him!

 

[Zonk]

You know...I understand that Charles wants and demands respect for his wife. She should receive it...she is his wife. But there is a time and place for everything.

Some people aren't going to like this. But you can't compete with a dead person. Even one as flawed as Diana. As long as Charles and Camilla contine with their day to day lives, complete their engagements, support and love each other. They will be fine. When you put Diana in the equation all bets are off.

And really, I think its a bit unfair for the Diana fans (although I will admit there are some who need to really take a step back and relax a little) to take the blame for this for fiasco. From the get go, Camilla attending the memorial was a BAD decision and it only got worse the closer we got to the memorial.

 

[Empress]

Yes well, I am sure that he will be a spineless slug of a King, until someone denies him one of his whims at which point he'll have a temper tantrum worthy of a 2 year old who hasn't napped in 18 months, been fed a continuous stream of sugar and isn't getting his way when he's been used to it since day one.

Pity, since he does seem to do some good things... They are just all over shadowed by his self serving, self pitying, me me me attitude.

 

[sirhon11234]

I feel very sorry for Camilla because her husband has put her into a bad situation which she tried to avoid. My perception of Camilla has softened a little bit. For the first time I question Charles' ability to be king after his actions during this event. I like Charles but as a man I don't respect him.

 

[Zonk]

Exactly. Camilla chose to marry Charles, knowing the baggage she would have to carry, and accepted concessions to the memory of Diana as the price for membership.

If she makes it to the Coronation, she will be Queen, assuming the public doesn't turn on her husband again, which is by no means certain, is it?

This is probably off topic...but I think Charles insisted on getting married. Camilla woudl have been fine with the way things were. She had all the perks and none of the baggage.

 

[branchg]

Charles is the one who has to worry, not Camilla. At the end of the day, he still has to cross his fingers the public will accept him as King with Camilla crowned by his side.

If not, then it will be 1936 all over again.....Abdication in favor of William.

 

[BeatrixFan]

And then the Royal Family deserves to die. It's buried itself.

 

[sirhon11234]

And then the Royal Family deserves to die. It's buried itself.

You honestly believe that?

 

[branchg]

I feel very sorry for Camilla because her husband has put her into a bad situation which she tried to avoid. My perception of Camilla has softened a little bit. For the first time I question Charles' ability to be king after his actions during this event. I like Charles but as a man I don't respect him.

Perhaps he needs to recall the advice of his beloved Lord Mountbatten, warning him that his selfishness and self-pity were the exact same traits The Duke of Windsor displayed....with disastrous results for the monarchy.

 

[branchg]

And then the Royal Family deserves to die. It's buried itself.

It's become a very shaky situation and The Queen certainly cannot be proud of the values her selfish children have displayed throughout their lives.

 

[Empress]

Well, the Queen never knew she would be Queen until a good portion of her personality had been formed. Unfortunately for Charles he's been allowed to whinge about every little thing, and people give into him because his mother is the Queen. Mores the pity for everyone involved. Thank goodness William and Harry don't seem to have inherited that much of that trait.

 

[wbenson]

Charles is the one who has to worry, not Camilla. At the end of the day, he still has to cross his fingers the public will accept him as King with Camilla crowned by his side.

If not, then it will be 1936 all over again.....Abdication in favor of William.

That's why I think he just needs to buck up and announce that upon his accession, Camilla will be his Queen, no ifs, ands, or buts. That will (hopefully) give his future realms some time to "deal" with it, and it will most likely be accepted when the time comes. This dancing around the question of her status will help nobody in the end.

 

[Elspeth]

Charles is the one who has to worry, not Camilla. At the end of the day, he still has to cross his fingers the public will accept him as King with Camilla crowned by his side.

If not, then it will be 1936 all over again.....Abdication in favor of William.

And we're a large step closer to that now the tabloid press has shown it has the power to dictate, via whipping up public hatred, what the royals do. No doubt the next step will be an insistence on passage of legislation to set in rock the stuff about "Princess Consort" by effectively making morganatic marriage legal. If they're successful in that, which they may not be because it depends on the government rather than the royals and their worthless advisors, there's nothing to stop them whipping up such public hate for Charles and Camilla that abdication in favour of William becomes the only viable option. Given Charles's alleged unpopularity with the Men In Suits because of his reputation as an innovator, a whinger, and an interferer in politics, we can probably expect to see him be given about as much support over that issue as he was given over this one and over his wedding, which is to say zero support or even outright sabotage.

The sad thing is that this is probably something William doesn't even want. Unless he's really ambitious, he's much more likely to want time to marry and raise a family before becoming King. But, in much the same way that George VI didn't want to be king, that might not be important to the people who can't see beyond wanting to get rid of his predecessor for their own purposes. If the histories of the 1930s are any guide, it wasn't a given that the monarchy would survive that episode, and I think it's even less likely that it would survive the machinations that have been set in play now. Sort of ironic that people are so consumed with wanting rid of Charles so that Diana's son can be king that they're prepared to risk toppling the monarchy altogether.

I'm just glad Tony and Cherie Blair aren't still in office. Perhaps the current Prime Minister might be more sympathetic to the notion of being part of a constitutional monarchy.

 

[Elspeth]

You honestly believe that?

I don't know about Sam, but I believe it. I think the monarchy is in serious trouble now.

 

[love_cc]

Again being prince of Wales is not only a predicement but a curse. Firstly he has to walk in his father/mother's shadow until their deaths and then succeeds the throne.The sadness in their lives are always an unknown and unpredicatable future.I seriously think the history of the problems in British royals repeat again and again. It is what the circumstances caused with the complex characters for most heirs to the throne. Look at Edward VII-Edward VIII-Prince Charles. All these born heirs to the throne often have faced more and more problem in their lives and they failed to solve them for whatever reasons. The flaws in their characters pass generations to generations.

I have been a republican for several months already because I feel that the monarchy is out of the date not only for the country but also for the great burdens and expectations for future royal generations. . At the end of the history, the republican will replace the monarchy. It is a natural course of history. I like Prince Charles and I hope that he will be the King. But honestly I don't see the brightness of the monarchy even William is the next king. The problems always remain.It is only my humble opinion of course.

 

[branchg]

Well, let's not forget that Baldwin and the rest of the Government were adamant about getting rid of Edward VIII as well. And in that time, the press was hardly as vitrolic as it is today.

I don't see Abdication as likely, but the monarchy must have the consent of the people to survive. Since the royal perogative is ultimately exercised by The Prime Minister and the majority party in Parliament, the last thing they care about is the current occupant of the throne. They are more interested in ensuring the power of the perogative remains vibrant and sustainable for political gain.

So, the monarchy needs to survive and be embraced by the people as important. Otherwise, it becomes a useless relic of the past.

 

[sirhon11234]

I don't know about Sam, but I believe it. I think the monarchy is in serious trouble now.

Well I guess your right, the monarchy must survive and if its imperative for Charles to be removed as heir in order to save it then so be it. But hopefully it won't come to that.

 

[BeatrixFan]

You honestly believe that?

Surely you know me well enough by now to know that I don't say things for effect. What I say, I believe and what I believe, may God forgive me for.

In answer the question, yes I do believe that. How anyone thinks a 25 year old boy who's so far shown interest in only skirt and football can be a better monarch than a 59 year old man who has spent his entire life preparing for a role by building political relationships, international relationships and actually changing the face of Britain for the better (and you can't deny, his official life has always been exemplary even when his private life has been a mess) is beyond me. Just because the fans of his mother are fans of his mother, doesn't mean that by him taking the reigns before his time things will suddenly brighten, the heavens will open and down will beam Diana. One would hope that William is his own person and intends to create some foundation of work that qualifies him and prepares him for the role of Sovereign as his father has had to do. And one hopes that he will be freed from the spectre of his mother so that he can create that foundation on his own merits. If William were to become King before his time, it turns the House of Windsor into an X-Factor/Pop Idol institution and as we're seeing, that is no great thing. Oh you like William because he's Diana's boy but what about in 50 years time when William's son isn't showing the promise you believe William has? Do you skip him and find someone else? What you are suggesting is a federal constitutional monarchy and if we're going to have that, I'd much rather we had a federal republic.

You see, by people becoming hysterical and demanding that Camilla not attend this service, they've taken the first step on the road to something very different to what we have now. They don't like Camilla so they've prevented her from carrying out her role as consort to the Prince of Wales. Now, officially speaking, that's extremely dangerous for the Royal Family because it's rather like someone deciding that they don't like the Queen wearing the Imperial State Crown and stopping her from donning it occassionally. From tiny acorns, bloody big oak trees burst through your roof and by people turning the tiny details of who goes to an unnessecary memorial service into a phone-poll, the beginning of the end starts for the British Royal Family and what's slightly sad is that those obssessives who believe that hounding Camilla is what Diana would have wanted are actually shaking loose the foundations of the Crown that St Diana's boy-child will wear one day. They're changing the throne he'll inherit to spite someone he loves and what possible good can come from that?

All this finger-pointing and blaming - it gets me angry but it's what's underneath that gets me even more angry and the sad thing is, the majority of people celebrating their ghastly achievement in keeping Camilla away from this service, can't see what their actions mean. At least Charles the First cocked it up himself and didn't have over-zealous, celebrity-mad, delusional subjects forcing the axe down on his neck.

 

[Elspeth]

Well I guess your right, the monarchy must survive and if its imperative for Charles to be removed as heir in order to save it then so be it. But hopefully it won't come to that.

I think that if they decide to remove individuals because of public opinion about the individual rather than the institution, the monarchy is effectively dead. If you want a popularity contest, you should have a president. The whole point of monarchy is that it doesn't get involved in short-term issues where the incumbent has to run for office.

 

[sirhon11234]

But didn't that happen with Edward VIII?

 

[branchg]

William is definitely too young to be King right now, but assuming Granny hangs in like her mother did, that's plenty of time to learn from Papa's mistakes and foolish indulgences that have brought the monarchy to its knees.

 

[BeatrixFan]

William is definitely too young to be King right now, but assuming Granny hangs in like her mother did, that's plenty of time to learn from Papa's mistakes and foolish indulgences that have brought the monarchy to its knees.

I tell you what, we'll plug her into the life support now and keep her as a vegetable until Charles dies just so he can't become King eh? Will that suit you? 101, 110, 150, who cares about the Queen's health, it's denying Charles his birthright that's the most important thing after all. Honestly, who needs republicans when you've got monarchists?

 

[Al_bina]

And we're a large step closer to that now the tabloid press has shown it has the power to dictate, via whipping up public hatred, what the royals do. No doubt the next step will be an insistence on passage of legislation to set in rock the stuff about "Princess Consort" by effectively making morganatic marriage legal. If they're successful in that, which they may not be because it depends on the government rather than the royals and their worthless advisors, there's nothing to stop them whipping up such public hate for Charles and Camilla that abdication in favour of William becomes the only viable option. Given Charles's alleged unpopularity with the Men In Suits because of his reputation as an innovator, a whinger, and an interferer in politics, we can probably expect to see him be given about as much support over that issue as he was given over this one and over his wedding, which is to say zero support or even outright sabotage.

The sad thing is that this is probably something William doesn't even want. Unless he's really ambitious, he's much more likely to want time to marry and raise a family before becoming King. But, in much the same way that George VI didn't want to be king, that might not be important to the people who can't see beyond wanting to get rid of his predecessor for their own purposes. If the histories of the 1930s are any guide, it wasn't a given that the monarchy would survive that episode, and I think it's even less likely that it would survive the machinations that have been set in play now. Sort of ironic that people are so consumed with wanting rid of Charles so that Diana's son can be king that they're prepared to risk toppling the monarchy altogether.

I'm just glad Tony and Cherie Blair aren't still in office. Perhaps the current Prime Minister might be more sympathetic to the notion of being part of a constitutional monarchy.

Arabs, who ruled Egypt in the XIII century, used to say, “A ruler is largely governed by people around him. If the ruler decides to do anything, which goes against interests of the parties concerned, he will be warned; but if he insists on having his own way, he will be removed, because problems must be solved for the sake of power and peace in a country”. So it is reasonable to presume that this rule is still adhered to a certain extent.
If Prince Charles insists on certain points “because of his reputation as an innovator, a whinger, and an interferer in politics” (Elspeth, 2007) that go against interests of the Men in Suits, he will be given a usual choice between the throne and “retirement”.

 

[AuroraB]

William is definitely too young to be King right now, but assuming Granny hangs in like her mother did, that's plenty of time to learn from Papa's mistakes and foolish indulgences that have brought the monarchy to its knees.

Why? His Granny was 25 years old when she became Queen.

 

[BeatrixFan]

If Prince Charles insists on certain points “because of his reputation as an innovator, a whinger, and an interferer in politics” (Elspeth, 2007) that go against interests of the Men in Suits, he will be given a usual choice between throne and “retirement”.

But you're suggesting that we have a figurehead who's simply a voicebox who reads out the script provided by the Government. In which case, why have a King at all?

Why? His Granny was 25 years old when she became Queen.

In a different time when she could do no wrong. It's different now, people expect more. Why do you think Charles hasn't gorged himself on game, gambled on horses and slept with every eligible mare in high society who can drop her drawers? Because the role of the Prince of Wales has changed, he's actually expected to do something, he's had to create a role for the Prince of Wales in the same way that the Queen had her role as monarch created for her over 1000 years. The monarchy has changed because it's had to change but I fear the latest change is one change too far.

 

[Elspeth]

But didn't that happen with Edward VIII?

Pretty much, except that there were some good excuses, such as his wanting to marry a divorcee at a time when divorce was a social sin and the church flat refused to condone remarriage. However, one major difference is that Edward was a popular prince and king, and the press weren't orchestrating a campaign to get rid of him. In fact, because he was popular, it was considered expedient for the press to keep quiet about the whole business until it was too late to do anything. He was dumped by the government because he was considered unsuitable to be king for some of the same reasons Charles is regarded with suspicion now. However, the difference is that now you have a mob baying for blood, being manipulated by elements of the media which include republicans. Unlike in 1936, when very few people were willing and none of them were able to topple the monarch itself, you now have people willing to do it, and they're using this angry mass of people who've been whipped up with fury against Charles and Camilla.

Last time, when the press hunted Diana, it didn't end till she was dead. I realise that there are some people who would like to see the present fever whipped up until either Charles or Camilla or both are also dead. I hope those people understand that they're being used by others whose ultimate goal is the death of the monarchy itself. Unfortunately, the breathtaking ineptitude (or malice, or maybe both) of certain royal advisers is making that outcome more likely every time they interfere.