The Marriage

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by Zonk

Side note! Yeah! My 2000th post :)

Amateur!

Congratulations...

[Zonk]

Show off.

Thanks!

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by branchg

At the time, Camilla was deemed "unsuitable" because she was well-known to be quite independent and "had a past", by which they meant her boyfriends and sleeping around.

She had already met and started dating Andrew Parker-Bowles, Charles was serving in the Royal Navy and she wasn't too interested in becoming a member of the royal family. The Queen Mother and Lord Mountbatten were both lukewarm on the idea, so it ended.

It is rather strange that when you look for any evidence of her 'sleeping around', there are only rumours, apart from one male who implied he was the one that she lost her virginity to.

I believe you are right when you say she did not want to become a member of the royal family, she was never one who wanted to stand on ceremony or have people wait on her hand & foot. Nor would she have wanted to put up with the lickspittles that abound in these circles.

The QM and Mountbatten both wanted to continue their hold over Charles, and the Spencers had worked for years to get close to the throne, (based only on what I have heard), they would have found some reason to object if the bride was not of their choosing!

I think Charles had a hard job persuading Camilla to marry him this time around as well, which makes me chuckle when I read how she has schemed to become his wife for all these years!

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by scooter

With the inbreeding that was rampant in every royal house in Europe or centuries (leading to things like the Habsburg jaw) C and C were virtual 'strangers' to each other compared to virtually every other historic royal match. Have you read Michael Farquhar's book A treasury of Royal Scandals? Very inormative and most often on this subject (inbreeding not C andC)! He actually posted here on the forums about 9 months ago! Well written, acurate and amusing!

I haven't read his book, but it sounds interesting. I know many families have always had a complete search done, to ensure the line is not too linked. Tina Turners song comes to mind when talking about the fight to marry who you want, one line that many young couples heard from the parents - What's love got to do with it?

[love_cc]

Originally Posted by Zonk

Makes you wonder what would have happened differently if 1) APB did cheat so much thus causing Camilla to maintain a strong friendship with Charles and 2) Diana had kept her mouth shut to the press about Charles and Camilla's affiar.
Side note! Yeah! My 2000th post :)

Congratulations for finishing you 2000th post! I am still working hard on mine.

My estimation about Charles and Camilla's timing is earlier than yours.IMO Camilla's feelings for Charles gradually became more seriously after the birth of her first child then it peaked after the death of Lord Mountbatten.It was allegated that Andrew PB were unfaithful to Camilla already during or before the birth of Tom Parker Bowles.

Actually I think from the beginning Camilla's feelings for Charles are probably much deeper and more complex than we thought. It is a complex combination of a sister-brother love, a lover-lover relationship, and a friend-friend relationship. The combination of different types of love are very powerful andthe feelings never really stop. And my guess is that Camilla is always happier with Charles than she with Andrew because Charles is a more romantic person than Andrew, they are closer in age, and Charles is very single minded to her. Moreover Charles is quite comprehensive in interests and they can share more interests than she and Andrew. Andrew is more visual arts person but Camilla is more literature person. Laura inherits interests from Andrew and Tom inherits from Camilla because Laura said so.

[hornsen]

love_cc, I think so too. IMO she loved Andrew in another way than Charles. Andrew was a little bit scary, free in his mind and behaviour and hardly to hold. Therefore always interesting to handle.
But after a time it can be frustrating and release feelings of hate (she wrote something in a love letter to Charles published by Diana...). Charles is another type. He his romantic, careful and gives her all the love he is able to. And this constantly. And he needs to be mothered and spoiled. IMO Camilla is good in this. About their physically relationship is very much said, I imagine this is a very important point to them until today. And this is important for a relationship, too.

[Polly]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

It is rather strange that when you look for any evidence of her 'sleeping around', there are only rumours, apart from one male who implied he was the one that she lost her virginity to.

I believe you are right when you say she did not want to become a member of the royal family, she was never one who wanted to stand on ceremony or have people wait on her hand & foot. Nor would she have wanted to put up with the lickspittles that abound in these circles.

The QM and Mountbatten both wanted to continue their hold over Charles, and the Spencers had worked for years to get close to the throne, (based only on what I have heard), they would have found some reason to object if the bride was not of their choosing!

I think Charles had a hard job persuading Camilla to marry him this time around as well, which makes me chuckle when I read how she has schemed to become his wife for all these years!

Well, from my certain knowledge, the Spencers were already close to the throne. Indeed, like many aristocrats in the UK, they thought themselves somewhat superior to the throne and its family, as, indeed, in an historical sense they were. Johnny Spencer was a particular royal favourite - he accompanied the young Elizabeth on her Commonwealth world-wide tour following her coronation, and he and his family lived on Her Majesty's Norfolk estate until he inherited the title.

You might laugh at the suggestion that Camilla schemed to become Charles' wife. I don't know if this is so or not, but I do believe that she wasn't prepared to let him go free. However, the fault in this is always Charles', not Camilla's. He was the 'needy' one, not her.

As for Camilla's 'sleeping around', you're probably right in ascribing it to rumour. Who cares about such accusations anyway, these days? It's a pity, though, that the late Diana wasn't afforded such generosity of opinion amongst the censorious, striving, middle-classes of England, who've only ever struggled to emulate the ingrained influence of the aristocracy which it, so sadly, futilely envies.

[CasiraghiTrio]

Originally Posted by Polly

You might laugh at the suggestion that Camilla schemed to become Charles' wife. I don't know if this is so or not, but I do believe that she wasn't prepared to let him go free. However, the fault in this is always Charles', not Camilla's. He was the 'needy' one, not her.

I think this is a good point. Camilla always had a hold on Charles. She may not have schemed to be his wife, but she certainly maintained, possibly even manipulated, to keep a hold on him no matter what happened. I believe she was worried that she would loose her influence after he married Diana, which I believe is why she tried keeping Diana close, so to speak, in order to keep watch on things. I think in a sense she was always waiting in the wings, ready to pounce at the soonest hint of problems in that marriage. This is not to say anything negative about her. I am sure she did this because she was in love with Charles and she didn't want to lose him to Diana. All the same.... she must have known how much stronger was her hold on Charles's affections (and as Polly wisely pointed out, his needs) than Diana's.

[milla Ca]

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio

I think this is a good point. Camilla always had a hold on Charles. She may not have schemed to be his wife, but she certainly maintained, possibly even manipulated, to keep a hold on him no matter what happened. I believe she was worried that she would loose her influence after he married Diana, which I believe is why she tried keeping Diana close, so to speak, in order to keep watch on things. I think in a sense she was always waiting in the wings, ready to pounce at the soonest hint of problems in that marriage. This is not to say anything negative about her. I am sure she did this because she was in love with Charles and she didn't want to lose him to Diana. All the same.... she must have known how much stronger was her hold on Charles's affections (and as Polly wisely pointed out, his needs) than Diana's.

CasiraghiTrio, you write you don´t want to say anything negative about Camilla. But you do it!

The most things here we are talking about are only speculations. We both know that.
But with your post you support Dianas interview statement about ´three in this marrige´. And nobody knows if it´s true. Also we can believe Charles statement that he returned to Camilla not before his marriage was broken ( the time he didn´t know how to survive).
Maybe Camilla wanted to stay in her own marriage, with her children and her confortable life, and then decided (1984/85) that Charles needed her help and advice to go on with his life and she wanted to rescue him of a deep depression.

I said before that i think they are soulmates, but i don´t believe that Camilla ´´was always waiting in the wings´´. Only my opinion.

[BeatrixFan]

How about we put an end to all this, as the Bishop said to the chorus girl. I mean, the congregation.

[kimebear]

Amen, BeatrixFan.

[hornsen]

Originally Posted by milla Ca

CasiraghiTrio, you write you don´t want to say anything negative about Camilla. But you do it!

I wouldn´t say these are negative things. If you are very much in love, you´ll do that against all reasons. You certainly know that this isn´t right but, you can´t do anything. And this doesn´t mean you don´t like the "third" person. I think it was a very difficult and complex situation at that time.

[milla Ca]

I don´t want to start the Diana/ Camilla dicussion new. Sorry, if i have done this, it was not my intention after these hard royal weeks ( for me...)!

[hornsen]

milla Ca, you didn´t start the Diana/Camilla discussion again.
Because of the feelings between C+C I believe this situation was unavoidable. No matter if Charles had married another woman as D. or maybe nobody (this wouldn´t be happen of course).

[CasiraghiTrio]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

How about we put an end to all this, as the Bishop said to the chorus girl. I mean, the congregation.

Chorus girl? WTF?

Milla ca, what I meant about not saying something negative, is that I do not hold these things against Camilla, because I believe she acted as she did out of love. Love has a way of blinding or confusing moral/ethical issues. It can make people do things they wouldn't do in other circumstances. As for the "three in the marriage", Prince Charles actually confirmed it before Diana, in his Dimbleby interview. True, he said he resumed his romance with Camilla "after the marriage had irretrievably broken down"; however, as the marriage was still legal, his statement does confirm Diana's "three in the marriage" statement.

[BeatrixFan]

Chorus girl? WTF?

There used to be this joke in the 20s and 30s that if you said anything that had a hint of double entendree, you would say, "As the Bishop said to the Chorus Girl" or "As the Archbishop said to the Tart" or "As the Vicar said to Mae West" - that sort of thing. It was considered rather racy in those days when actresses were equated with whores and clergy were all regarded as whiter than white.

[pinkie40]

I think there were many people involved in the eventual marriage of Prince Charles.

The principals who were looking at the dynastic implications are Lord Mountbatten and The Queen Mum, both whom had their strong, personal
agendas. Mountbatten wanting to secure his name with the House of Windsor had failed to get Her Majesty The Queen to use Mountbatten as the official surname with the birth of Prince Andrew (although we have seen Anne (on her marriage registry) and Edward (in naming Lady Lousie) to employ it.

The Queen Mum, who had suffered through the indignity of the Abdication was going to be sure her mission was going to be in charge of the upkeep of the pristine image of the royal family, at whatever costs.

Then you have the man himself, Prince Charles. He holds a great grasp of history and was going to make sure he had all the perks a Prince of Wales is entitled to...the adventures...both under the covers and travelling to all corners of the globe. Lest we forget his moniker in the 1970's was "Action Man" and I am sure not of all that was due to his jumping out of planes but
that of jumping into beds of many pretty ladies.

As often happens, we loose sight of the morals of the man and focus heavily upon the morals of the woman (or women, in this case). Charles thoroughly enjoyed his batchelor ways, as evidenced in his rather advanced age of his first trip down the matrimonial aisle. He really didn't want to marry Diana so soon but with James Whitaker and Arthur Edwards promoting Diana in every morning's paper, Charles had his own father breathing down his neck so as not to be seen as ruining Diana's reputation...


But such carnal adventures must eventually lead to the creation of legitimate heirs, and I thoroughly believe had Mountbatten lived, Charles would have married the attractive Amanda Knatchbull...and continued his passionate
pursuits with Camilla...and others. It is simply the "understood lifestyle".

Had Diana not been a fan of reading the idealistic romances of her step-grandmother Barbara Cartland, then perhaps her admitted jealously (Colthurst tapes, Morton book) would have not been so intense..so keen and painful to her. I dare say she was not given the briefing by her sister Sarah and her grandmother as to the romantic ways of the royals/aristocracy.

Diana's idealistic view of devotion, trust and romance seemed never to have developed into a maturity of the reality of the situations aound her. Had Charles also shared this view of lifetime, sexual devotion to one mate only, Diana would have probably never even strayed once and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Robert Runcie's "fairytale" ( July 29, 1981) would have come to fruition.

Ken Wharfe mentioned yesterday on Larry King Live (transcript available at cnn.com/larryking) even after everything, Diana always referred to Charles as "my husband" and never in the past tense.

During the commentary on FoxNews regarding the memorial service
at various points in the day yesterday, Christopher Andersen (Diana's Boys, After Diana, etc.) mentioned how Prince William has become something of a royal rarity in the fact he is highly monogamous. Kate is a lucky young lady, indeed.

[Polly]

Casirighi Trio is right. One can offer criticisms of others without necessarily implying that they're agin those others. Ditto, discussing their foibles and perceived shortcomings, e.g.

in his personal life I think Charles a disaster-area, but I think that he's an outstandingly good Prince of Wales who genuinely wants to help those less fortunate and to make a difference to young lives. This is laudable, and much more than other Prince of Wales has ever wanted to be bothered with. I am comfortable in praising his public accomplishments for which he deserves much credit, while, at the same time, deploring his behaviour as a husband. He has, recently and quite unnecessarily, compromised his wife, which no sensitive and supporting husband would dream of doing if he were not so self-absorbed at a personal, mundane level.

[princess olga]

Originally Posted by kimebear

It wasn't really about Diana. Since he couldn't originally marry Camilla, I don't think Charles really cared who he married ..

But what about Diana being on record as telling her sons that in the beginning of her marriage, she and Charles loved each other 'as much as she loved her kids'?

Am I the only one to actually believe that? Because I do: why <wouldn't> Charles have had feelings for the woman he ended up marrying? I just don't think Charles was/is that cynical. He was maybe pressured into marrying Diana, granted. But he must at least have been charmed by the her, I'd think.

[Polly]

True or not, I think that that was a most wise and sensible course to follow. For the sake of young children's sense of security and sense of self, I believe it important for them to feel that their parents loved each other and that they,the children, were born of love and affection. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Charles said much the same thing to his sons, to be honest.

Actually, I do believe that Diana loved Charles but that her young life was riven with jealousy, but that so far as he could, Charles admired and was proud of Diana - at least in the beginning. Notably, when they were in Australia when Wills was a toddler, there was absolutely no sign of anything other than mutual respect, affection and good will between them. Diana became, rapidly, the star attraction, and Charles looked at her, wherever they went, with such pleasure and admiration.

Ah yes, I remember it well.