The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   Royal Library (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f61/)
-   -   'The Duchess: The Untold Story' by Penny Junor (2017) - The Duchess of Cornwall Bio (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f61/the-duchess-the-untold-story-by-penny-junor-2017-the-duchess-of-cornwall-bio-42545.html)

Dman 06-23-2017 10:45 PM

'The Duchess: The Untold Story' by Penny Junor (2017) - The Duchess of Cornwall Bio
 
Some good reading for The Queen and other members of the royal family: ;)
https://mobile.twitter.com/AllieHBNe...48366333100032

Camilla's side of the story revealed in explosive new book | Daily Mail Online

Curryong 06-23-2017 11:30 PM

Thank you Dman. So this, IMO, very bad idea for a book, is to be published on June 29th, as a riposte, no doubt, to the 20th anniversary of Diana's death (and presumably the two documentaries on her death and funeral, to be participated in by her sons.) How very very interesting, and calculated.
The whole sorry mess of the War of the Wales's ripped open again.

Mirabel 06-23-2017 11:35 PM

I've never bought into the eternal love of Charles and Camilla, simply because Charles was involved with far too many other women to make it plausible that she was his one true love.

After his marriage imploded, I believe he did turn to an old friend-Camilla- for comfort.
And now, they are comfortable with one another and seem well-suited.
But I don't see it as some sort of destined love.

(For what it's worth, I do think Anne would be happily married to Andrew Parker-Bowles had things fallen out differently. They are still constant companions).
But what-ifs are always counter-productive, and the truth may never be known.

Pranter 06-23-2017 11:59 PM

I'm with you on this one Mirabel.


LaRae

Dman 06-24-2017 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mirabel (Post 1996517)
I've never bought into the eternal love of Charles and Camilla, simply because Charles was involved with far too many other women to make it plausible that she was his one true love.

After his marriage imploded, I believe he did turn to an old friend-Camilla- for comfort.
And now, they are comfortable with one another and seem well-suited.
But I don't see it as some sort of destined love.

(For what it's worth, I do think Anne would be happily married to Andrew Parker-Bowles had things fallen out differently. They are still constant companions).
But what-ifs are always counter-productive, and the truth may never be known.

No, but that's been part of the PR campaign. To make it seem like this is the greatest and most triumphant love story of all time. A lot of it is pretty much crapola. Although, many (including me) are very happy that the two are doing very well together.

royal rob 06-24-2017 01:21 AM

I don't see a love story I see a lot of people forgetting their vows and causing pain along the way. Bringing the needed young virgin into that group was pathetic.

Zonk 06-24-2017 01:45 AM

I agree with Mirabel...well to some extent.

IMO because Charles was dating other women, he wasn't too sure of his initial feelings for Camilla, and was going to use his time away [i.e. being at sea with the navy] to make a decision. That's why he asked her to wait for him, which we all knew she didn't. I think he was starting to fall in love with her but knew that her past would be an issue. Plus she had Andrew on the side. She knew her past would be an issue that's why she didn't take his love for her seriously.

I think she truly loved Andrew [who doesn't love the bad boy] and during the early years of the Parker Bowles marriage, Charles and Camilla were just truly good friends. If Andrew had behaved properly and no other marital issues being an 'issue.' Charles and Camilla would have never turned to each other when they both started having issues with their spouses.

The love they have now is a mature kind of love...not that kind that you have when you are young...unicorns and rainbows, etc. This mature love is one of friendship, attraction to your spouse as well as companionship.

Duke of Marmalade 06-24-2017 02:08 AM

oh dear the pro camilla spin in full swing, is this really necessary? the less people hear about the war of the waleses again the better.
i thought that camilla had already neutralized her position with people, she'll never be loved but doesnt need to. i feel this kind of coverage will make the public mood into negativity again.
this may be a love story but it goes along with a lot of hurt and betrayal.

Nico 06-24-2017 07:04 AM

Here we go agaaaaaaaaaain (heavy sigh).
Totally unecessary and let's say wrong timing. BUT it's the DM not the Times.
BUT
It's always a bit interesting to see a different side of that story. The Diana's eulogy is sometimes so unreal that a counterstory must be told (they published the tapes from Morton for Pete's sake, hardly some king of unbiased material). I really doubt that the public will buy it though. First because the vast majority doesn't care, second because some people are too stuck with their fanatism to accept some king of new facts.
So as i said, totally unecessary.
Fed up with all this crap, and we are not yet in August...
Gosh the summer will be looooooooong.

Denville 06-24-2017 07:15 AM

I don't know if Camilla has anyting to do with this book but its possible that Junor who is a fan of hers, sees this as a good time to write about her, when she and Chas are nearly 70 and getting closer to the "king and Queen" stage of life. And Cam's friends are problaby willing to talk, MAYBE she has given them the nod to do so.. or at least not dissuaded them. however I think that it is a mistake, fi she has.. because I think that she has gotten to a stage with the public that she's considered OK. She and C have been married over 10 years. She's generally liked when she does engagements.. and people seem to take to her. So she has IMO overcome her low point and will be liked if not loved, as queen. But this book re hashing her affair with Charles, special pleading for "Her" side of things.. is problaby only going to raise the hackles of people who are not too fond of her, and have a bad knock on effect.

Osipi 06-24-2017 08:19 AM

I am also in agreement with Mirabel. The relationship that Charles and Camilla have today took years to develop and grow. It had many different levels before "I dos" were stated at the altar. The two of them went through various stages of their lives, the good and the bad and the warts and all, before ending up together as spouses and to be honest, because of the various things they've gone through, they've really gotten to know each other inside out and backwards and it works.

Camilla, today, is even on very good terms with Andrew Parker-Bowles and I imagine, that if Diana had lived, Charles and her would have come to an amicable, working arrangement as it seemed they were heading that way when she died.

I do think its very important to be best friends first of all heading into a marriage. Maybe part of that is being there as a best friend for someone as they go through the ups and downs of life and need someone to lean on. That's a wonderful quality to have in a spouse.

I don't see rushing right out to get any book written on Camilla. Personally, I think it would have been best to not rehash the "olden days" at all. No good ever really comes from opening up old wounds. To open them up for people that have no business knowing about it makes it worse. Perhaps the book will be a fair and well balanced biography. Perhaps when its on sale for cheap I'll find out. Until then, its not going to bother me not to be reading it.

Dman 06-24-2017 08:24 AM

:previous:

These authors make a great deal of money reopening old wounds. Look at what they're doing to Diana. It's always about money.

Duc_et_Pair 06-24-2017 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by royal rob (Post 1996534)
I don't see a love story I see a lot of people forgetting their vows and causing pain along the way. Bringing the needed young virgin into that group was pathetic.

That "young virgin" herself soon forgot her own solemn vows anyway...

More or less it all seems to boil down to Lord Louis Mountbatten, the 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma, who thought Camilla -however impressed with her charm as well- was "not sufficiently aristocratic" to marry The Prince of Wales.

From her mother's side Camilla certainly has "posh enough" ancestry with the Barons Ashcombe, the Earls of Albemarle, the Baronets Edmonstone, the Lords Keppel and the clan MacNab.

It remains a "what if?" question. What if Lord Louis had said to his protégé Charles: "go for it!".

Curryong 06-24-2017 08:46 AM

Camilla was deeply in love with Andrew Parker Bowles at the time, in spite of his wandering eye. According to Penny Junor, who apparently knows all about it, she was determined to marry him. She also had a 'past' (ex lovers/ boyfriends) which put her in the 'unsuitable' category.

Pranter 06-24-2017 08:59 AM

I think when it came down to it, Charles was just too indecisive and IIRC he was the same about Diana...the difference is the very public/media interest in Diana and his father telling him to 'fish or cut bait' as it were....if there'd of been less pressure I think his relationship with Diana would of gone the same way as the one with Camilla.


LaRae

Osipi 06-24-2017 09:00 AM

Its very possible too that with both Camilla and Charles being on the young side during the "sexual revolution" of the 60s, both of them could easy state at the time "whatever in love means". :biggrin:

Perhaps Camilla, herself, was in a quandary. She was dating both Andrew and Charles at the same time. Andrew was dashing and debonair and Charles was a relationship more at the emotional level. I don't know. It could be that the dashing and debonair won out over the emotional. I do know that the Parker-Bowles marriage was more of the aristocratic open and discreet kind and with that, Camilla was able to explore the emotional relationship with Charles (at different levels) while still having the dashing and debonair Andrew.

It just so happens that in the end, the emotional bond between Charles and Camilla won out.

royal rob 06-24-2017 10:24 AM

Charles , Camila , kanga etc etc Andrew Anne it's a wonder they could keep up with all the carrying on
And not discreet if everyone knew what was happening

Queen Claude 06-24-2017 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curryong (Post 1996515)
Thank you Dman. So this, IMO, very bad idea for a book, is to be published on June 29th, as a riposte, no doubt, to the 20th anniversary of Diana's death (and presumably the two documentaries on her death and funeral, to be participated in by her sons.) How very very interesting, and calculated.
The whole sorry mess of the War of the Wales's ripped open again.

Camilla's birthday is July 17, she is turning 70 this year. Some consider it an awkward coincidence that Camilla's milestone birthdays coincide with milestone anniversaries of Diana's death while others don't consider it a coincidence since Diana instigated the tip offs to the press that resulted in her ill-fated romance with Dodi Fayed becoming public with one of her motivations believed to be to eclipse the a highly publicized 50th birthday celebration for Camilla spearheaded by Charles.

Curryong 06-24-2017 01:54 PM

This book is to be released two days before Diana's birthday, which was July Ist. Penny Junor's book seems to be concentrating on Charles and Camilla's love affair which will inevitably bring back the time of the War of the Wales's again to public notice, especially as the book is being serialised in the DM.

Queen Claude 06-24-2017 02:19 PM

:previous: The release date is two days before what would have been Diana's 56th birthday and two weeks before Camilla's 70th birthday.

Your original comment used words like "calculated" and "riposte" and ties it to the 20th anniversary of Diana's death not her 56th birthday. I see why that thought would cross someone's mind but then with the added information that it is also a milestone birthday of Camilla's then I don't think the assertion that this book or any additional attention that Camilla is going to get in the coming weeks is an attempt to ride on the coattails of (or deflect from) the media attention relating to the 20th anniversary of Diana's death.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:09 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018
Jelsoft Enterprises