What do you think of Charlene?
 

Since the beginning of the Charlene & Albert relationship, there has been an ongoing discussion about the suitablity of Charlene as a suitable companion or potential wife/princess for HSH Prince Albert of Monaco. Since this issue will not go away, the moderators of the Monaco forum have decided to create a specific thread to discuss this subject.

We are doing so for the following reasons:
1) As stated, it's not a subject that is going away anytime soon. Well at least until the relationship has moved to the next level (i.e. marriage) or they decide to part ways. It is a subject of discussion for all members, new and old.
2) It is a subject that "infects" numerous threads, whether it be threads that involve the rest of the royal family (it has been briefly discussed in both the Princess Grace and Caroline threads for example) or the activities of Albert and Charlene. While we recognize that Charlene has no official activities on behalf of Monaco, Albert does and often the suitability of Charlene as a potential mate (even when not present) finds her way into his thread.

The moderators of the Monaco forum are creating this thread with some reservations, and as such, we have definitive rules about how the discussion in this thread will be conducted. Please read them carefully. Failure to comply with the specific guidelines below will result in the post (and related replies to such a post) deleted immediately without notice to the members. Depending on the severity of the infraction, members may face disciplinary action for them.

1) Insulting comments about other posters and royals are not permitted. Criticism is acceptable; insults and flames are not. We expect our members to treat each other with respect.
2) The Albert/Charlene relationship or lack of a relationship (as defined by some members) is a controversial one. Some things will be said that in general that members will not like. Before posting, please re-read the post in question to ensure that you are not misreading it. Ask for clarification of a point if you are unsure of something. Don't just assume something about another member's comment.
3)If you don't like Charlene, please watch the tone of your posts as well as some of the words used to describe Charlene. There is a way to express your opinion without being offensive to your fellow posters.
4) Please post your replies with a level head. We all have our own opinions and they should be respected, even if you don't necessarily agree with them.
5) There is to be no unsupported or malicious speculation. Our rule about speculation is intended to prevent tabloid-type flights of fancy which often slip into outright fantasy and sometimes even libel. While we realise that much of the information posted in the threads is based on reports in the media which we can't verify, we expect posters to base their statements on published reports rather than on wishful thinking or unsubstantiated hearsay. The forum moderators have the final say about whether posts are unacceptably speculative. Disagreements with moderator decisions must take place via private message, not by arguing in the threads and certainly not by reposting deleted material.

We are starting fresh with this thread, although there have been numerous other discussions of Charlene's suitablity in other threads. Any and all discussion about this will be confined to this thread only.

If you have questions about this thread, such as what is and is not permissible, please contact Lady Jennifer, TBHRC or Zonk to discuss it. Likewise if you have concerns about this thread.

i'll go first.
i give her the same respect as i would anyone, reason she takes up space.just like any person does. but it would be nice for her to act with more self respect. if she is training for the 08 games, then train for the games. if she is wants to be pa "companion" then be it. but dont sit on the fence.
there, i said my peace
just remember its my opinion, so no bad thoughts about me

I thought that miss Wittstock was past present?

For the rest I hope that Prince Albert will look after a nice bride in her thirties or something, of noble or patrician descent.
The House of Monaco needs a new 'shot' of style and class.

is the romance between ber and albert still on as i read that things seemed to have cooled. it would be such as hame if it has as she seems a really nice and well suited bride

They spent New Years together in Austria. She is still classified as his official companion. I don't know if that is code for girlfriend/future fiancee.

As I have said before from my personal observances, Charlene is quite the social butterfly and "chatty" in social settings.

I think she 'cleans up' quite well actually, and, as consort of Albert, would do fine.

As for whether she is what Monaco needs, well, not sure. Monaco is sinking as a place to be seen, unless you are a Russian billionaire. I think therefore it would be better if Albert married more of a combination of brains a la Letizia, and glamour a la for example a more pedestrian Angelina Jolie.

It's too bad Rania of Jordan is no longer on the market. She would have done VERY well I think in Monaco.

I guess if he's happy with her hanging around, that's all that matters, right?

He said he wasn't going to marry anyone at all, but if he does marry her, I guess we'll just have to get used to it.

I think she could be alright because, imo, she's not going to go anywhere soon -- as long as she behaves herself I guess she will continue to call Monaco 'home' for a while.

jmo

I think she is pretty enough, but her behavior, imo, has been very juvenile & inappropriate. Unfortunately my impression of her has not changed since we were first introduced to her in Turin.

The first photos of her in Turin (her first public outing) where she is overtly affectionate (laying in Prince Albert's lap & hanging on him) in public & in pictures where she is looking directly at the camera. Making quotes to the press about the Olympics being "...a good place for lovers" (they are both past Olympic participants & Albert is a member of the IOC) you might think she might say something more appropriate about the sports at the Olympics? It seemed important to her to reveal the details of the relationship publically? She seems very insecure. Also when a reporter asked her about any impending marriage, she quipped "not yet". I believe from the beginning she seemed to seek attention & enjoy creating speculation. That is just my impression of course. But then I learned of the interview she gave years before regarding her first date with Albert (a Tell-All-Account) to the South African press detailing their date. I find her behavior very immature & inappropriate for anyone, especially for someone who is dating someone in Prince Albert's position, which makes the 20 yr age difference even more disturbing. I also believe she just does not possess the social skills among other things that one will need to fill the role Albert's wife will need? So that was my first impression & since then she seems to keep confirming it. I'm sure she is a nice girl in her own way & in a different environment.

I don't find age difference between Albert and Charlene disturbing. In most traditional societies it's quite common that a husband is much older than wife. And Charlene is almost 30 y.o, so in this age it doesn't seem so a huge age gap, if she were in her early 20s and Albert was in his 40s it would be different. I mean Charlene is not a girl any more. I consider a women in this age mature. Many posters wants future Albert's wife to be in her 30s, but it's almost Charlene's age. But I think many don't accept age difference b/c of Charlene's behavior. She is just childish. Her life also seems like someone in early 20s or below. She doen't have any career plans. I don't think anyone believes in her swimming plans. Many people in her age have already families.Charlene just seems a clueless girl.

Charlene is only "classified" as Prince Albert's "official companion" on these message boards and never by the palace directly. It’s only a title that was interpreted in a Daily Telegraph (London) article and then misquoted by an Internet journal, the Post Chronicle.

This is the first post on the Royal Forum about the dubious title of “official companion”

However the last paragraph of the Post Chronicle article shows their sloppy journalism. First, if you click on the “Times UK” link you’ll find that the Post was actually quoting the Daily Telegraph. The Times didn’t write the article. Here’s the direct link to the Telegraph article. The last two sentences in this article states:

Quote:

The billionaire prince has never married and is often described as the world's most eligible bachelor. He is dating Charlene Wittstock, a former Olympic swimming champion from South Africa. While the palace in Monaco has played down rumours of an imminent marriage, Miss Wittstock was recently acknowledged as his official companion.

So, this is where everyone on the message boards is getting their cue that the palace has entitled Charlene Wittstock with the dubious title of “official companion” (which the Post Chronicle placed in quotes in their article). In my opinion, the Telegraph’s last sentence is not a definitive statement that the palace entitled Charlene with a title of “official companion” . This seems to be only an observation on the writer’s part that Charlene is officially Albert’s companion since she was presented to various Monaco officials at the Grandprix Auto Club gala. The Telegram never used the term “official companion” in any of their subsequent articles about Charlene and Albert. In fact a search of the term in the main stream media, the term “official companion” has never been used. More importantly, the French equivalent term (compagne officielle) has never been used in the French press NOR the Monaco press to refer to Charlene. The French press has referred to Charlene as Albert’s “compagne”, but never used the exact term official in conjunction with it. Here’s an example of the French media use of the term from one of the first press stories about this couple.
I believe the Daily Telegraph just applied the term to Charlene based on Charlene’s appearance at what some press wrote as her “official” presentation. In fact, two articles in the Monaco press used the term "official" to describe her appearance as Prince Albert's companion at Grandprix functions. This is an excerpt form the Monaco Press’ article/picture gallery under the title “The Principality under the Charm of Charlene” http://www.mcpress.mc/

Translation:

Quote:

On Sunday, May 27th, 2006 HSH Prince Albert II introduced officially during the gala diner of the Car Club of Monaco which was held in the Room of Stars, his companion by with whom he is being in love for more than 6 months. Charléne Wittstock met the Sovereign Prince during the swimming sporting events precisely in Monaco in 2000 where she carried off 200 métres backstroke. A former champion swimmer, she represented the Southern Africa in the Sydney Olympic Games in 2000. Their idyll had been revealed during the Turin Olympic Games where the Prince did not hide its affection for the delightful Charléne.

Other media wrote similar stories that Charlene was officially presented to Monaco as Albert’s girlfriend. Thus, I believe this is what the Telegraph was alluding to in their article. The last two lines in their article is NOT a definitive statement from the palace as everyone has assumed on these message boards. Furthermore, on the rare occasion that Charlene is referred to in the press in Monaco, no title is given only her name. An examples from Monaco’s le Petit Journal.

Le Petit Journal: Aug 4, 2006 article (translated page)

Quote:

900 convives à la plus prestigieuse manifestation caritative de Monaco

A correction was even made to the press to identify Charlene’s as Prince Albert’s guest and not girlfriend in captions during the Red Cross ball. So, if the palace has given Charlene’s this title of “official companion” why haven’t they used it? Or, why hasn’t Prince Albert (any any of his associates), the Monaco Press, or even the main stream press ever used this title after the first mentioning by the Telegraph? Because it simply does not exist. It exists only on these message boards. Rumors and misinterpretations are easily spread across these message boards. Immediately after Maryellen’s posts the discussion started. The original stories about Charlene as presented by Paca were great and she gave details of some of the happenings in Monaco. But, a title of “official companion” as reported by the press or the palace was never mentioned prior to Maryellen’s first June 2, 2996 post. But, Paca quoted the mistakenly attributed Times UK article as her source of “official companion”

Only a few posters actually questioned the validity of the claim that Charlene was given this title of “official companion” directly by the palace. These posters asked for verification, but the discussions normally focused on the term itself, specifically it’s definition. NEVER has anyone posted anything that proves that this actually came from the palace. NO ONE.
The definition of the title “official companion” and its credence as coming from the palace was further enthrenced by explanations from posters. But, not one official source of this title coming from the palace was ever given after Creative’s first request.
By the time “Charlene Wittstock current Events Part 5” was started by tbhrc on 08-06-2006, 02:52 PM, the banner read:
And, thus the seal of approval and fact of such a title was further enthrenced. But as a reminder from rule 5, “…While we realise that much of the information posted in the threads is based on reports in the media which we can't verify…” This title of “official companion" has never been verified AND its origin came from this one sentence in an article in the Daily Telegraph:

Quote:

..While the palace in Monaco has played down rumours of an imminent marriage, Miss Wittstock was recently acknowledged as his official companion.

Just because such a statement is repeated often enough doesn’t give credence to its factuality. I’ve asked many times on another message board for any type of verification of this “official companion” title or job coming from the palace, but no one has ever produced it. Posters only refer to the original Telegraph article. Only a couple of people, such as Creative, has also asked for such verification. But, there isn’t any because this title is just several misinterpretations (message board posters) of a misinterpretation of a wrongly attributed article (Post Chronicle article of putting the term in quotes and stating that it came from the Times UK) of a misinterpretation (Daily Telegraph article) of a statement of an interpretation only by the Monaco Press that Prince Albert’s action of taking Charlene Wittstock to the Autoclub gala was an “official” presentation of his “companion". Nothing more and nothing less, in my opinion of course!

The use of the title "official companion" has been used officially by the moderators and adms of this message board and by various posters by various ways for various reasons. But the title has NEVER been used by the palace or the Monaco Press or any affliate of Prince Albert in any publications and they had various opportunities to use it. Just something to think about.

Excellent research MyAdia. :flowers:
It appears to be yet another case of misinterpretation being accepted as fact through sheer repetition.

Thanks, we've been debating that term since May. I am glad to clear that one up and at this point in time she looks more like an on again off again girlfriend anyway.

I would like to thank all of you for this info. I thought it was a title given to her by the palace. To be honest I am a little relieved to hear that it was just a breakdown in communication. As I have said before I sure she is a lovely person but just not princess material.

MyAdia, thanx for your research. It looks like "official companion" never existed. It was created by tabloids that wanted to increase sale by stories about possible princes od Monaco.

I think that they will date for probably a long time, but I do not think that they will get married. I think that she is kind of pretty.

I don’t believe that the “official companion” term/title was even a tabloid story. I don't know, has anyone read a tabloid article where this term was used? Again, I think besides the below two articles (and I saw a Mexican article last fall), this term was restricted to the message boards. It seems to me to be a mistake by a journal making a slight assumption with their quote from another article.

The excerpt from the Post Chronicle was posted on The Royal Forums, in which the Post stated that their quote came from the Times (but when you actually click on the link, it’s a Daily Telegraph article):But, if you read the actual Daily Telegraph quote, the Post Chronicle took a slight liberty that wasn't included in the original statement (but which made a big difference to posters).

Quote:

He is dating Charlene Wittstock, a former Olympic swimming champion from South Africa. While the palace in Monaco has played down rumours of an imminent marriage, Miss Wittstock was recently acknowledged as his official companion.

The Post Chronicle article reworded the article stated, the palace in Monaco has played down rumours of an imminent marriage, but have acknowledged Miss Wittstock as Albert's "official companion". Although a slight difference, but this statement is saying that the palace has recently acknowledged Miss Wittstock as Albert’s “official companion”. They put official companion in quotes since the sentence is a paraphrase and they are quoting a direct term that is important from the original article.

However, if you read the Daily Telegraph original article, the writer has no problem using direct quotes, quoting terms, and attributing the correct subject to the action. She didn’t say the “palace acknowledged…” instead she used a comma and wrote “Miss Wittstock was recently acknowledged…” which is a passive statement where she doesn’t attributed a subject to the action. The Daily Telegraph writer is careful in attributed actors to important actions when she doesn’t use direct quotes to repeat their statements (she uses direct quotes 5 times). Here are some examples from her article where she doesn’t use direct quotes but makes the actor and action clear, Prince Albert of Monaco admitted…, The prince's lawyer said…, Prince Albert admitted…, The lawyer said…, They quoted…, Mr Lacoste said…, and the palace in Monaco has played down. But, the writer doesn’t state that “the palace… but have acknowledged” as the Post Chronicle stated. And, she probably would have placed the statement in direct quotes if she was attributing something from them, or at least place the term “official companion” in direct quotes as she did the term "circling paparazzi" when she paraphrased this quote: The lawyer said the decision had been made to confirm the reports because the "circling paparazzi" were making Jazmin's life intolerable.

I know this seems like boring tedious word-smithing, but this “official companion” term has been used both supportively and derisively in hundreds of message board posts. The term is kind of a mainstay now, so I don't expect people to stop using it. I just wanted some perhaps new posters to realize its origins. I wanted to write this explanation, so you are welcome, but even I am making assumptions. Of course, one can always ask the writer if she got the statement directly from the palace. But if anyone does, I probably wouldn’t mention any message boards. I don’t think you want journalists snooping around these boards.:smile:

What does "official companion" really means? Does it mean that he is only and I mean only sleeping with her and no one else?

We're getting rapidly off topic here....
Brilliant piece, MyAdia.
It's just a pity that Albert, Charlene in her numerous interviews and the palace haven't worked a bit more on defusing the rumours. Then all this media attention that Albert complains so much about wouldn't have happened. Now everyone can explain things in his/her own way - the boards, the tabloids.....