Albert and Charlene's Relationship

[hibou]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin

My concern is that I have spent three mos here lurking and reading all existing threads and I have not found ONE rational reason why some people feel this girl is unqualified to become the next Princess.

So when posters tell us to "go and read the threads" as if that is some type of irrefutable evidence it does become confusing. Because the fact is the only place, and I do mean THE ONLY PLACE that I have read disapproval of and downright animosity toward the relationship of PA and CW is right here on TRF.

I read that we all have different standards of grace and dignity and that is no doubt true. But by all accounts the Princesses Stephanie and Caroline are highly thought of on this board...yet between them these two have joined the circus, carried on affairs with married men, borne children out of wedlock, and been pregnant at the altar and have been seen in various states of undress with cigarettes dangling from their mouths. Yet Charlene Wittstock of South Africa is unfit to be Prince Albert's Princess because she spoke to the Press or behaved indiscreetly earlier in their relationship? This same Prince who, by the way, has flipped off photographers and has two illegitimate children by different women?

What is wrong with this picture folks?

All I am saying is give the young lady and chance, and try to be fair. That's all!

I have been fair. But I have a problem with people who say one thing and do another. Had Charlene not said she was training over and over and over and then given a speech about not smoking, eating the right foods ,and then we see her smoking and partying and not training. As I have said before it's a matter of credibility. I simply can't believe I word I read when she gives and interview. I am much older than you and I have seen a lot in my life and I bring that forward into my observations. I have a problem with this girl's character. You can always make over a person as we have seen in the last two events. We know that with the right dress, hair and make up a frog turns into a princess. It's about who she is and so far she hasn't given me one ounce to go on. Nothing to make me think she is a women of substance. Sorry but that's my opinion of her.

As for Albert, I am perplexed as to why he does what he does in relationships. They all seem to end and believe me he has dated some pretty nice girls.

[sebastian]

Originally Posted by hibou

I have been fair. But I have a problem with people who say one thing and do another. Had Charlene not said she was training over and over and over and then given a speech about not smoking, eating the right foods ,and then we see her smoking and partying and not training. As I have said before it's a matter of credibility. I simply can't believe I word I read when she gives and interview. I am much older than you and I have seen a lot in my life and I bring that forward into my observations. I have a problem with this girl's character. You can always make over a person as we have seen in the last two events. We know that with the right dress, hair and make up a frog turns into a princess. It's about who she is and so far she hasn't given me one ounce to go on. Nothing to make me think she is a women of substance. Sorry but that's my opinion of her.

As for Albert, I am perplexed as to why he does what he does in relationships. They all seem to end and believe me he has dated some pretty nice girls.

Maybe, but why is this a problem for you?
I don't understand how one can possibly be frustrated with a relationship that is not your own.

[hibou]

Originally Posted by sebastian

Maybe, but why is this a problem for you?
I don't understand how one can possibly be frustrated with a relationship that is not your own.

Well first of all I'm not frustrated. I am perplexed. Huge difference. Think of it as a game (which Albert certainly likes to play with the press) so if one were to play chess for example there are moves one makes to advance down the board until finally it is checkmate. Albert plays all over the board but in the past he has not been sovereign and he himself said he keeps his real girlfriends hidden. So what are we looking at here? what's the game? (and Albert is a gamer). For me it's just something interesting and fun to watch yes I have no vested interest if he marries her other than watching what ensures, but also I wish the best for Monaco and to me she brings nothing to the game board to advance Albert's agendas -this in her own words from the interviews. She would have been better off keeping her mouth shut. Then we would have only her dresses to talk about and nothing else. Go figure!

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by sebastian

Maybe, but why is this a problem for you?
I don't understand how one can possibly be frustrated with a relationship that is not your own.

Oh, it's possible. It can be very frustrating when people you care about are in destructive or even stagnant relationships, especially if they're unhappy or feeling trapped or in actual danger but are too scared or depressed to extricate themselves. Now, whether you could characterise Albert and Charlene's relationship as destructive or stagnant (I sincerely hope it isn't abusive) and whether you can accept the concept that people can care about folk they've never met is another matter. But I think it's probably safe to say that most of the members of TRF do care about the royals at some level or there wouldn't be much point posting here.

[sebastian]

Ye

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Oh, it's possible. It can be very frustrating when people you care about are in destructive or even stagnant relationships, especially if they're unhappy or feeling trapped or in actual danger but are too scared or depressed to extricate themselves. Now, whether you could characterise Albert and Charlene's relationship as destructive or stagnant (I sincerely hope it isn't abusive) and whether you can accept the concept that people can care about folk they've never met is another matter. But I think it's probably safe to say that most of the members of TRF do care about the royals at some level or there wouldn't be much point posting here.

Yeah you're right I guess, but there's a limit to everything, isn't it.
I don't know, some posters probably crossed the line a little too far for my taste. Sorry for not beeing able to make my point any clearer.
I might give up on this one.

[sandsla]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

.......Erm, cookies?

As for campaigning for the job, again, that seems to be a matter of opinion. She's talked to the press (or at least her family has) and isn't exactly camera-shy, but apparently she hasn't taken any steps to learn French or to find out about the nuts-and-bolts work that Albert does as Ruling Prince, which would seem to me to be obvious things a person should be doing if she's trying to make herself fit to be his consort. She may be in the exact position she wants to be in, and the chances are that she's in the position that Albert wants her to be in at least for the present, because he's the one calling the shots (at least, I assume he is, what with being a Ruling Prince and all). I'm sure other people will have different opinions, and all these opinions are what we're looking for in this thread......

Elspeth, Thank you for the post! I believe I am pretty much in agreement with you! And appreciated your posts.

I tried to give a few examples, because not long ago, more than a few of us posted even more examples. If they want to see the picture of Charlene staring into the camera with her head in his lap, or her remarks to the press. Or her interviews she gives, (she is more than Chatty) where she poses for pictures on the cover of Paris Match promoting herself as something? as well as copying the Grace Kelly poses provided inside (this was early in the game). Remarks in regard to her swimming & SA team? Photo shoots where she is posing as a model & more interviews? They will need to do their own research, before telling us we are not being fair? Which translates that we do not have the right to our opinions. Some of us may be at a more mature age as someone suggested, as well as being in industries where we are in the business of where we are able to understand the proper protocols of both politicians & celebrities and generally the importance of being discreet & mature about it. But this should be common sense to anyone.

The cookies comment, is in reference to a series of posts including mine that went back & forth about "What Charlene will bring to Monaco"? Which I was only responding to, and was not the one who posed the question in the first place? I was trying to get across that I wasn't sure what she would/could bring to Monaco, as the poster never offered that up? (IMO) Charlene has not showed us she had any kind of altruistic nature, as yet? So I was curious as to what she thought Charlene would bring? When the poster seemed very confused, even though she evidently thought she would bring something? But never supplied us with an answer or opinion? I offered up a possible answer to her question?? This is one example of frustration which leads to some people going over board, such as myself on occassion.

I agree with your suggestions what she might want to at least be perceived doing, but even I have not gone that far to suggest it, as I agree this is not her position yet. Which is why I guess you can tell by now, I do not understand all her public promotion. All she had to do in my book, was keep her mouth shut, try to keep out of the tabloids with quotes & avoid giving full interviews for whatever reason that seem beyond her own merit! That seems a pretty wise & simple thing to do, where she could have avoided inviting all the criticism & speculation they are receiving? I'm with you, I would rather see her on the wrong end, by being overly prepared, if you are going to spend as much time as she has in another country, anyone would probably attempt to learn the language. Perhaps she is? So I have avoided comment on it. Elspeth, Thanks again for the posts. I think I will give it a rest for awhile

[brother]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin

So when posters tell us to "go and read the threads" as if that is some type of irrefutable evidence it does become confusing. Because the fact is the only place, and I do mean THE ONLY PLACE that I have read disapproval of and downright animosity toward the relationship of PA and CW is right here on TRF.

magazines want to sell, so it would be illogic to make negative comments about a story that can get the public’s attention and increase revenue. Be sure that not even the authors believe some of the crap they write when praising this relationship (ex: the possile wedding dates).
So were else besides the media could someone hear comments? The forums, or right there in MC. We are close watchers here, and it was proven on quite a few occasions that someone is reading these boards and addresses the comments we make. So the fact that TRF (or other boards) is the only place were criticism can be read shouldn’t be such a surprise. Go to Mc and you’ll see what you ears will hear about Charlene. You may think we are bad here...

Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin

Yet Charlene Wittstock of South Africa is unfit to be Prince Albert's Princess because she spoke to the Press or behaved indiscreetly earlier in their relationship? This same Prince who, by the way, has flipped off photographers and has two illegitimate children by different women?

Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin

What is wrong with this picture folks?

All I am saying is give the young lady and chance, and try to be fair. That's all!

<Removed speculation without proof. / Mandy>

[Tosca]

BTW Grace was indeed a human being, but I'm sure she never picked her teeth in public, and would have been horrified in seeing one of her kids doing it!

Then, no wonder she had high blood pressure!

[Ghislaine]

<Removed quoted bit for consistency.>

<Removed reply to quoted bit.>

Originally Posted by sandsla

I agree with your suggestions what she might want to at least be perceived doing, but even I have not gone that far to suggest it, as I agree this is not her position yet. Which is why I guess you can tell by now, I do not understand all her public promotion. All she had to do in my book, was keep her mouth shut, try to keep out of the tabloids with quotes & avoid giving full interviews for whatever reason that seem beyond her own merit! That seems a pretty wise & simple thing to do, where she could have avoided inviting all the criticism & speculation they are receiving? I'm with you, I would rather see her on the wrong end, by being overly prepared, if you are going to spend as much time as she has in another country, anyone would probably attempt to learn the language. Perhaps she is? So I have avoided comment on it. Elspeth, Thanks again for the posts. I think I will give it a rest for awhile

I have to agree with you here : silence and discetion would have been better and less posts would have ensued. And for you and Hibou, you know that all those contradictory actions can be explained by <echo on>"the great conspiracy theory"<echo off> : the one that says that it is a business deal, just show, a play for drawing attention, to get loads of media attention, both for Monaco and Charlene. And to acquire funds for Charlene and her retirement fund. Some also throw in that he is trying to project a stable relationship and that that makes a better image for a head of state than a new fling every week.

Finally, I would like to remark that Albert and Charlene have put themselves in this position by conducting their relationship (in whatever sense of the word) in public and should not complain about the ensueing attention. Albert knows very well what can happen and what will happen. He has enough means and opportunities to conduct a relationship in privacy. Even the German court ruled that Charlene had no grounds for complaining and sueing for a breach of privacy as she voluntary and willingly associated herself with a known person a.k.a. a celebrity a.k.a. prince Albert.

Disclaimer: JMO.

[paca]

She also gave an interview not too long ago to Bunte as she reappeared in Monaco. <Removed comments unrelated to Albert and Charlene's relationship>

[lilae]

Originally Posted by paca

She also gave an interview not too long ago to Bunte as she reappeared in Monaco. It was at the Audi shooting and she gave a step by step account of her plans of attending competitions (while in Europe and so far she hasn't attended one, not even the one that she mentioned namely) and that she was here to train. Where? We don't know as the Olympic pool is closed for renovation, the Beach club would not close their business for her and the pool at the port, well, if she was there everybody could watch her, though it might me a bit difficult to train between waterslides and other leisure swimmers. Then add to that her frequent appearances at all sorts of evening events, when from her own words that is not possible to do while you are training and focusing on winning medals...

I think that you remember this: IOL: Apple of Prince Albert's eye makes a splash Paca, you saw her during may (?) in the swimming pool... If she was training, i guess that some people around would have told you or me... nothing...She's not perhaps focusing on winning medals... she only wants perhaps to be in Olympic SA team... she has to train she's only in National team.Swimming South Africa - www.swimsa.co.za - The official home of aquatics in South Africa ... There is a big event soon Durban World CupSo, wait and see.

[BurberryBrit]

Why doesn't Albert just tell her to stop talking? It's obvious her words and actions are not matching up and IF (Lord I hope not) he ends up marrying her, it will just look really, really bad. Just keep quiet Charlene!

[BurberryBrit]

Can someone give me the specific details or direct me to the post the details how EXACTLY Charlene met Prince Albert?

[paca]

Originally Posted by BurberryBrit

Can someone give me the specific details or direct me to the post the details how EXACTLY Charlene met Prince Albert?

I think My Adia has posted once the article from the South African magazine where she gave her first interview with a detailed account of her encounter with Albert.

[CasiraghiTrio]

Originally Posted by hibou

Actually there was a photo of her picking her teeth at the small states games I 'm not sure where you will find the photo but I did see it. I can't verify it was spinich.

Ok, now I really feel very sorry for Charlene! That has to suck, being photographed like that. This is why I am so thankful I am not a celebrity, because I would be the worst kind of celebrity ever! If I had cameras in my face as much as the Casiraghis, I would lose my mind and just flip out!
How they handle it with such a grace is one of the mysteries that propels my fascination endlessly. Sometimes I just look at them, and wonder, how on earth do they come across so sane, because I would have gone off the deep end of looniness by now?!

Originally Posted by michelle

Can I ask you something? HOW DO YOU KNOW ?
I'm trying really hard to get the sense here, what is it that makes you ( not only you - there are some more posters doing the same) pick on Charlene and Albert and all their beeing, decisions, their relationship, their every move ??? I'm kind of curious because I just don't get it.
You're judging them by seeing pictures, reading interviews ... you draw your own conclusions ( which is absolutely your right ) but , you know nothing! Plain and simple: That's unfair.
I don't want to defend Albert, or Charlene or anyone. I believe they are reasonable people. There is a reason for Aöbert to be with her. Whatever it is, it isn't as complicated and shady as you might think. There is no conspiracy going on.

Thank you for posting this, Michelle. The emboldened bits are so logical. You're dead on right about there being a reason for CW and PA, and the reason being theirs to have and unnecessary for us to know, and it is just absurd to think it's a conspiracy for PR or something, because in the unlikely event it's a PR sham, it's a bad one, isn't it? I think if the courtiers were conspiring to marry off PA for PR reasons, they should have found someone more typecast who could capture hearts, and whatever one can say about CW, she is certainly not the "type" you would expect the son of Princess Grace, brother of Princess Caroline and Princess Stephanie, to fall in love with. That he has chosen her leads me to the conclusion that there is something about her he sees that no one else can see. He who can have anyone he wants would not have a woman around unless he wanted her around, would he? CW has the position that many Euro socialites would lineup for, doesn't she?

Thanks also to Elspeth! I know it's been said already many times, but Elspeth is doing a great job here, and I just want to add my own pat on the back for it, because it can't be easy to moderate this thread, and Elspeth brings a refreshing bit of reasonable fairness to it. You are doing right, Elspeth! Don't let anyone here get you down!

[paca]

This is a comment I found on a Southafrican site Charlene Wittstock helps to fight aids… in Monaco - Jetstreaker

[hibou]

Originally Posted by paca

This is a comment I found on a Southafrican site Charlene Wittstock helps to fight aids… in Monaco - Jetstreaker

Thanks for the article paca. We don't often get what is said or posted on SA sights. I did find his last comment a bit sarcastic but then he isn't saying anything we haven't been, it's just a surprise to see it in an article. I wonder if we have any SA posters who might be able to find more infor for us in any SA news sites.

[Moonmaiden23]

Originally Posted by brother

magazines want to sell, so it would be illogic to make negative comments about a story that can get the public’s attention and increase revenue. Be sure that not even the authors believe some of the crap they write when praising this relationship (ex: the possile wedding dates).
So were else besides the media could someone hear comments? The forums, or right there in MC. We are close watchers here, and it was proven on quite a few occasions that someone is reading these boards and addresses the comments we make. So the fact that TRF (or other boards) is the only place were criticism can be read shouldn’t be such a surprise. Go to Mc and you’ll see what you ears will hear about Charlene. You may think we are bad here...




<Removed speculation without proof. / Mandy>

I do not agree that the tabloids are more interested in spinning fairy tales and happily ever after than trash and innuendo. Have you ever heard of Rupert Murdoch and Britain's "News of The World?" or the US's "National Enquirer?" Do you remember the massive coverage of the marital breakdown of the Prince and Princess of Wales? Enough said.

Stories detailing the travails of people like Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan and
Paris Hilton sell big for a reason. People like dirt and reading about the misdeeds of others. I think the Germans call it "schadenfreude".

[Moonmaiden23]

Originally Posted by sandsla

Elspeth, Thank you for the post! I believe I am pretty much in agreement with you! And appreciated your posts.

I tried to give a few examples, because not long ago, more than a few of us posted even more examples. If they want to see the picture of Charlene staring into the camera with her head in his lap, or her remarks to the press. Or her interviews she gives, (she is more than Chatty) where she poses for pictures on the cover of Paris Match promoting herself as something? as well as copying the Grace Kelly poses provided inside (this was early in the game). Remarks in regard to her swimming & SA team? Photo shoots where she is posing as a model & more interviews? They will need to do their own research, before telling us we are not being fair? Which translates that we do not have the right to our opinions. Some of us may be at a more mature age as someone suggested, as well as being in industries where we are in the business of where we are able to understand the proper protocols of both politicians & celebrities and generally the importance of being discreet & mature about it. But this should be common sense to anyone.

The cookies comment, is in reference to a series of posts including mine that went back & forth about "What Charlene will bring to Monaco"? Which I was only responding to, and was not the one who posed the question in the first place? I was trying to get across that I wasn't sure what she would/could bring to Monaco, as the poster never offered that up? (IMO) Charlene has not showed us she had any kind of altruistic nature, as yet? So I was curious as to what she thought Charlene would bring? When the poster seemed very confused, even though she evidently thought she would bring something? But never supplied us with an answer or opinion? I offered up a possible answer to her question?? This is one example of frustration which leads to some people going over board, such as myself on occassion.

I agree with your suggestions what she might want to at least be perceived doing, but even I have not gone that far to suggest it, as I agree this is not her position yet. Which is why I guess you can tell by now, I do not understand all her public promotion. All she had to do in my book, was keep her mouth shut, try to keep out of the tabloids with quotes & avoid giving full interviews for whatever reason that seem beyond her own merit! That seems a pretty wise & simple thing to do, where she could have avoided inviting all the criticism & speculation they are receiving? I'm with you, I would rather see her on the wrong end, by being overly prepared, if you are going to spend as much time as she has in another country, anyone would probably attempt to learn the language. Perhaps she is? So I have avoided comment on it. Elspeth, Thanks again for the posts. I think I will give it a rest for awhile

Since when is expressing the opinion that someone is being unfair translate into "you have no right to your opinion?" I have never and will never tell someone they have no right to their own opinion. That is absurd. I will tell them when I think the opinion they have formed is UNFAIR.

Please take note of the difference,because I am becoming more than a little weary of hearing that I am denying others a "right to their opinion".

Thanks in advance.

[Jaya]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin

My concern is that I have spent three mos here lurking and reading all existing threads and I have not found ONE rational reason why some people feel this girl is unqualified to become the next Princess.

So when posters tell us to "go and read the threads" as if that is some type of irrefutable evidence it does become confusing. Because the fact is the only place, and I do mean THE ONLY PLACE that I have read disapproval of and downright animosity toward the relationship of PA and CW is right here on TRF.

I read that we all have different standards of grace and dignity and that is no doubt true. But by all accounts the Princesses Stephanie and Caroline are highly thought of on this board...yet between them these two have joined the circus, carried on affairs with married men, borne children out of wedlock, and been pregnant at the altar and have been seen in various states of undress with cigarettes dangling from their mouths. Yet Charlene Wittstock of South Africa is unfit to be Prince Albert's Princess because she spoke to the Press or behaved indiscreetly earlier in their relationship? This same Prince who, by the way, has flipped off photographers and has two illegitimate children by different women?

What is wrong with this picture folks?

All I am saying is give the young lady and chance, and try to be fair. That's all!

What is wrong with this picture is that Cw has no education and has no high school diploma in the year 2007.That is equal to being functionally illiterate in these times and I just have to wonder what this lady will pass down to children who romantics feel have to be born to justify the existence and the throne over in Monaco.Albert has children out of wedlock but he has completed his university degree so when he needs to converse and not cough with a head of State he will know what to say.Not only do they have a massive age gap between them but the differnece in their cultural upbringing is gargantuan.The divide is that CW has no higher education which would have immediately earned her the respect of all and sundry.Nor has she done anything in the arts to compensate for here lack of it in these areas.She has no linguistic skills and does not speak French even.... That is what is wrong with this picture despite the airbrushing going on.......This is fair and reasonable... when there is a debate going on....
Just how the Grimaldi sisters fit into this has no bearing...