Albert and Charlene's Relationship

[Moonmaiden23]

What is wrong with this picture? First, CaliforniaDreamin, you are right. Charlene does look lovely in that picture. I've always stated that Charlene was attractive. I just do not find her as beautiful as some posters and the media think that she is. I do find her very photogenic. She has great features, especially her eyes, I think they are beautiful. But, I've seen the close-up pictures of her with out the glossed over photo shopping and her skin in haggard, she has a lot of wrinkles around her eyes, and her profile is less than to be desired. Also, I come from a culture where women with curves are considered to have a great figure - and not just being tall and thin. So, I don't agree with the masses that consider a woman with no breast, no waist, no butt, no hips, and broad shoulders to have a great figure, as they say about Charlene. Actually, I saw a recent picture of Princess Beatrice with her mother on the catwalk (and a pic of Beatrice in a bikini) and for the first time she wasn't wearing frumpy clothing. I think that she has a good figure who would look smoking hot with a shedding of a few pounds. She really does have an hourglass figure, which I find more attractive than a figure like Charlene's (it's just my standard that's all).

So, all this to say that you aren't missing anything if someone's looks are the most important thing about them. Well, I think also Charlene was praised because there is nothing negative about her - in the royal world it seems negativity is now mostly defined as having out-of-wedlock children, affairs, or a previous marriage. I always found the child criteria extremely hypocritical and illogical, since the immorality in many cultures and religion is the engagement in out-of-wedlock sex (which most if not all the new European brides have had and many have lived with their husband to be prior to the wedding). An out-of-wedlock child is only the product of the immorality and irresponsibility (or on purpose or faulty) with birth control. There is nothing else of substance about these women that seems to matter. Hence, the outcome is a new crop of fashion-obsessed princesses or princess wannabees where their success is judge solely by how well they look and dress. So, Charlene is lovely, she has no children, and she has never been married and for many she's perfect.

What are you missing? In this particular picture - her behavior. While everyone else is watching the opening ceremony, she has spotted the camera and is watching it. I don't have access to my files of pictures, but there is a series of pictures of her doing exactly this. Some of us think that it was a deliberate attempt to let the public know that she is Prince Albert's lover, which she actually stated. Her behavior and statements were unprecedented for any of the other girls that he has EVER taken out in public for the first time. NEVER has any other date done such a thing. Even the serious press covered her Turin debut and her statements were widely overheard and reported. This is Charlene's response when asked about how she is enjoying Turin from LeFigaro: "Turin n'est pas seulement joli, mais également très romantique. Un lieu de vacances idéal pour deux amoureux». Interrogée sur un éventuel mariage, elle s'est bornée à dire: «Les jeux Olympiques sont la priorité et je me prépare pour les JO de 2008 à Pékin». (Turin is not only beautiful, but equally very romantic. An ideal vacation for two lovers. Questioned about a possible marriage, She contented herself with saying: "The Olympic Games are the priority and I get ready for JO of 2008 in Beijing."). What's missing? Charlene says one thing, but the spirit and action behind her words contradict her statements. After Turin, Charlene spent 2006 traveling the world and parading around Monaco with Albert. She was listed to compete in SA's national championship in April 2006 and she scratched. After Turin, her first competition was in Dec 2006 for two relay events where none of the top swimmers competed.

It's always been about her behavior, attitude, and motivation for me. With Albert's resources and money, I believe any woman that he marries will look good. Things of substance is cultured and nourished at an early age and illuminates from a person. It’s a shine and it doesn’t originate from someone’s blondness, eye color, or figure. What's missing? Substance.

MyAdia, with all due respect, your detailed synopsis of this one little photo goes much farther than my question. WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THE PHOTO?? I have no opinion of Ms Wittstock because other than what is reported of her in the media .I have never met the young woman. We have never had tea. I have never interviewed her family and friends. If she did indeed insult the French politican at the rugby match she is stupid and undiplomatic. But this says more about PA than it does her because he is content to parade the young woman around without a mentor.

What I find mind boggling about this forum is how so many of your are willing to judge this girl based on your SUBJECTIVE opinion of a photograph. If she is the monster some of you have assured us she is, why has there been not one leak in the press?? I went out and bought Paris Match last week for some type, ANY type of report on the incident with the French pol and I found nothing. Nada. Zip. Same for Le Monde.

The increasingly strident and personal attacks on this girl puzzled me when I first came here and they continue to do so. For the record, I don't think she is a great beauty either. But she is attractive enough. My honest opinion is that the Principality of Monaco is simply not important enough on the world stage where the Prince has to choose his bride as carefully as Spain, England,etc.

Why not wait and see if PA does indeed marry her, and then wait to judge her performance IF AND WHEN she becomes Princess? Is that out of the question?

 

[MyAdia]

MyAdia, with all due respect, your detailed synopsis of this one little photo goes much farther than my question. WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THE PHOTO??

I went in to detailed becasue I and people like myself are used to posters berating us because of our non-glorification of Charlene solely based on her looks. So, I think your assessment of...

What I find mind boggling about this forum is how so many of your are willing to judge this girl based on your SUBJECTIVE opinion of a photograph...

...is inaccurate. I tend not to judge Charlene based on what she looks like on photos. I have provided tons of information beyond pictures to show why I assess Charlene they way that I do. My opinion is objective and is mostly based on her own behavior, attitude, and actual statements. The irony is that my manner seems to upset people more so than if I would just say that I don't like her just because. Errol Morris wrote a great article for the New York Times (check out his blog) about assessing photos. He argues that believing is seeing and not the other way around. He states, "We do not form our beliefs on the basis of what we see; rather, what we see is determined by our beliefs. We see not what is there, but rather what we want to see or expect to see." I think this is clearly demonstrated on how different posters view Charlene. I would just appreciate it if people stop attacking those that don't see her the way that you may.

I have no opinion of Ms Wittstock because other than what is reported of her in the media. I have never met the young woman. We have never had tea. I have never interviewed her family and friends.

What? First, I have read your opinions of Ms. Wittstock in this forum. You've stated it on many occasions. Second, I never quite understood the logic behind posters stating that if one hasn't met someone in person they cannot form an opinion about them. That simply is not true. I have never met, nor had tea, nor interviewed the family and friends of Jesus Christ, Hitler, Paris Hilton, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, or Prince Albert just to name a few. But, I can form an objective opinion about them.

If she did indeed insult the French politican at the rugby match she is stupid and undiplomatic. But this says more about PA than it does her because he is content to parade the young woman around without a mentor.
If she is the monster some of you have assured us she is, why has there been not one leak in the press?? I went out and bought Paris Match last week for some type, ANY type of report on the incident with the French pol and I found nothing. Nada. Zip. Same for Le Monde.

I never said she was a monster and I agree that it is more a reflection of Prince Albert (maybe that's why he left her at home the next game). Thus far, I haven't read any posts stating that Charlene was a monster. That's more a reflection of your thinking and conclusions based on people's assessments of her. Second, the fact that the Rugby incident was reported in the SERIOUS press and not the tabloids is more telling. Yes, it was reported even in Le Monde (here's the link), Le Point, and Gente Mondial to name a few. The serious press hasn't reportred on Charlene and Albert's relationship beyond Charlene's first appearance with Prince Albert. That they chose to report this incident is a big deal. That one of those dignitaries had to link the information is a big deal. That anyone can think that her behavior wasn't rude and inconsiderate is absolutely mind-boggling to me (as another poster stated). I am used to people discounting any concrete evidence (or attacking the poster) that present Charlene in less than a glorifed light of what people think who she is based on her looks. So, I post at my own peril. It seems that anytime something is posted and discussed beyond a picture of Charlene where she is smiling and looking "lovely" beside Prince Albert is posted, we get the kind of remarks that you just hurled. Some people like looking at pictures and basing their opinions and discussions on the pictures and some - like me- want more. Why have a discussion board if you cannot discuss.

The increasingly strident and personal attacks on this girl puzzled me when I first came here and they continue to do so. For the record, I don't think she is a great beauty either. But she is attractive enough. My honest opinion is that the Principality of Monaco is simply not important enough on the world stage where the Prince has to choose his bride as carefully as Spain, England,etc.

That's your opinion that Monaco is simply not important enough on the world where the Prince doesn't have to choose his bride carefully, but realize others may disagree with you.

Why not wait and see if PA does indeed marry her, and then wait to judge her performance IF AND WHEN she becomes Princess? Is that out of the question?

This is another thing that is so illogically to me. I don't understand why people conclude that if someone thinks that a person is void of substance and sincerity AND is selfish and self-absorbed (as Charlene stated about herself) that these basic ingrained character traits will magically morph into something else once that person marries. It reminds me of women who think that their cheating boyfriends will change once they get married. Diana was manipulative, insecure, and condoned Prince Charles' relationship with Camilla before they got married. What magically changed once she got married? It doesn't happen.

This is a forum where people come to voice their opinions. There is no rule that says only one type of opinion is allowed. I express my opinion in a different manner than you do. I don't hurl insults at others because their opinions are different than mine. I just provide information (each can choose what they want to believe with the information) to accompany my opinion. I know this may be a little intimidating, but I don't form opinions based on what people look like. I find such assessments discriminatory. In my opinion, some of the glorification of Charlene in some of the German press, based soley on her blondness and blue eyes, is reminiscent of the Nazi propaganda.

 

[hibou]

Well, I cannot easily dismiss the education portion. The problem is not just that Charlene doesn't have a formal education, because in the U.S. we have athletes who have graduated from high school AND college who are functionally illiterate. What Charlene stated in her Paris Match interview is that her grades didn't matter to her only swimming. So the debate whether she finished high school is a mute point for me. She showed me something more important - her performance and attitude toward learning. This is a woman who is telling you that she attended school and performing well and learning didn't matter to her. Compare this to someone like Princess Mathilde who returned to school and completed her masters degree even AFTER she married her prince. That's substance people.

Substance for Charlene is telling a reporter on April 15, 2007 (article) that she can return to Europe because the tabloids will leave her alone because, ""I feel now that they respect the fact that I have a career, and that I need my space." Charlene has created a farce of a career instead of actually re-examing her life and matching her skills to something that she can give back and make a difference. Actually, she has created her space even more in the public in front of the media since she returned to Monaco. Her words are shallow. But, I will give her due credit for her determination - she has that ten-fold. How can one respect her for her intelligence?

I personally don't dismiss education's importance either but I have been attacked for saying it is necessary. I thank you for supporting the argument for an education. I marvel at Princesses with graduate degrees and how they use them to better their countries and mankind. It is a stark contrast to Miss Wittstock. We can also agree on her determination. In addition, you have stated quite well using quotes from Miss Wittstock's interviews that illustrate what kind of person she is and I think there are enough interviews to validate the opinions you have given on her. I thank you for your research as well.

 

[bbb]

someone else said it best "when a person shows you who they are- believe them" i think i've seen who she is and imo she's lacking in all categories. no substance at all. she comes off as shallow and proud of it, not someone curious about the world's condition or interested in others less fortunate which i consider an important trait for a woman in the position she's aiming for- princess of monaco.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I went in to detailed becasue I and people like myself are used to posters berating us because of our non-glorification of Charlene solely based on her looks. So, I think your assessment of...

...is inaccurate. I tend not to judge Charlene based on what she looks like on photos. I have provided tons of information beyond pictures to show why I assess Charlene they way that I do. My opinion is objective and is mostly based on her own behavior, attitude, and actual statements. The irony is that my manner seems to upset people more so than if I would just say that I don't like her just because. Errol Morris wrote a great article for the New York Times (check out his blog) about assessing photos. He argues that believing is seeing and not the other way around. He states, "We do not form our beliefs on the basis of what we see; rather, what we see is determined by our beliefs. We see not what is there, but rather what we want to see or expect to see." I think this is clearly demonstrated on how different posters view Charlene. I would just appreciate it if people stop attacking those that don't see her the way that you may.

What? First, I have read your opinions of Ms. Wittstock in this forum. You've stated it on many occasions. Second, I never quite understood the logic behind posters stating that if one hasn't met someone in person they cannot form an opinion about them. That simply is not true. I have never met, nor had tea, nor interviewed the family and friends of Jesus Christ, Hitler, Paris Hilton, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, or Prince Albert just to name a few. But, I can form an objective opinion about them.

I never said she was a monster and I agree that it is more a reflection of Prince Albert (maybe that's why he left her at home the next game). Thus far, I haven't read any posts stating that Charlene was a monster. That's more a reflection of your thinking and conclusions based on people's assessments of her. Second, the fact that the Rugby incident was reported in the SERIOUS press and not the tabloids is more telling. Yes, it was reported even in Le Monde (here's the link), Le Point, and Gente Mondial to name a few. The serious press hasn't reportred on Charlene and Albert's relationship beyond Charlene's first appearance with Prince Albert. That they chose to report this incident is a big deal. That one of those dignitaries had to link the information is a big deal. That anyone can think that her behavior wasn't rude and inconsiderate is absolutely mind-boggling to me (as another poster stated). I am used to people discounting any concrete evidence (or attacking the poster) that present Charlene in less than a glorifed light of what people think who she is based on her looks. So, I post at my own peril. It seems that anytime something is posted and discussed beyond a picture of Charlene where she is smiling and looking "lovely" beside Prince Albert is posted, we get the kind of remarks that you just hurled. Some people like looking at pictures and basing their opinions and discussions on the pictures and some - like me- want more. Why have a discussion board if you cannot discuss.

That's your opinion that Monaco is simply not important enough on the world where the Prince doesn't have to choose his bride carefully, but realize others may disagree with you.

This is another thing that is so illogically to me. I don't understand why people conclude that if someone thinks that a person is void of substance and sincerity AND is selfish and self-absorbed (as Charlene stated about herself) that these basic ingrained character traits will magically morph into something else once that person marries. It reminds me of women who think that their cheating boyfriends will change once they get married. Diana was manipulative, insecure, and condoned Prince Charles' relationship with Camilla before they got married. What magically changed once she got married? It doesn't happen.

This is a forum where people come to voice their opinions. There is no rule that says only one type of opinion is allowed. I express my opinion in a different manner than you do. I don't hurl insults at others because their opinions are different than mine. I just provide information (each can choose what they want to believe with the information) to accompany my opinion. I know this may be a little intimidating, but I don't form opinions based on what people look like. I find such assessments discriminatory. In my opinion, some of the glorification of Charlene in some of the German press, based soley on her blondness and blue eyes, is reminiscent of the Nazi propaganda.

Unless you are confusing me with someone else, you have not read any opinion from me on this board regarding Ms Wittstock's personality and character. I have stated many times that I admired a certain gown, or that I thought she was attractive, etc. I am a minority female and I couldn't care less about blond hair and blue eyes, so the reference to "Nazi propaganda" was a little out there, even for THIS place.


Thank you for the links you provided but I don't read Spanish, only French. And in the reader responses to the Gente Mondial article I find it fascinating that not ONE of the responses had a negative reaction to the incident with the French pol. As a matter of fact, when I read the article I changed my opinion. I had previously only read the recaps of it on this board, which made it sound like some huge international faux pas on the level of Laura Bush belching loudly at a State dinner at Buckingham Palace. Unbelievable.

I stand by my assertion that since no one at this Forum knows this woman personally, we have no true idea of her character flaws, motivations, etc. This forum is beginning to remind me of those 18th and 19th Centurys cabals and cliques one reads about in the memoirs of say...Saint Simon at the court of Lous XIV, where a bunch of women do nothing but sit around criticize, gossip and tear apart someone who is currently in favor at Court.

I'm also puzzled by your statement of being "attacked" by posters who are pro-Charlene.????? First of all, there are only one or two people here who have posted positive comments about the woman, I am among them. The positive comments are few and far between all the negativity. And I don't consider refuting or disagreeing with someone else's opinion "attacking" them. Attacking someone is calling them a name or denigrating them on some personal level....refuting or rejecting an opinion is NOT the same at all. At least not where I come from. I respect your opinion about Monaco, PA and CW. I just happen to disagree with it, which is fine.

 

[hibou]

According to the late Prince Rainier, Gossip was invented in Monaco. So I'm sure in that we can all agree. Any time opinions come into place it runs the risk of gossip. However, I think in MyAdia case she substanciates her position with direct quotes which is not gossip nor can it be exact gospel either but it is as close as one gets to hearing the person "speak" unless attending an event where a poster has overheard her (and we do have posters who have spoken to her and heard her) it is also true that things can be edited to sound differently than they were spoken, but Charlene has repeated her stories so often it appears to be reliabe that she said it.

The PM rugby incident made "hard" news not tabloid fodder which is interesting. Laura Bush's belch was not deliberate but unfortunate and there is a difference there to. Of course if Mrs. Bush did it deliberating - well then that's rude isn't it? To my knowledge mods and admin. on this forum don't let things get too nasty infact they err on the side of concervative. Other threads on the Royal forum on other royals are much worse than what I have read on the Monaco forums to be honest. I think it just comes with the territory of blogging. We all take hits for our opinions at some point. JMO

 

[Moonmaiden23]

According to the late Prince Rainier, Gossip was invented in Monaco. So I'm sure in that we can all agree. Any time opinions come into place it runs the risk of gossip. However, I think in MyAdia case she substanciates her position with direct quotes which is not gossip nor can it be exact gospel either but it is as close as one gets to hearing the person "speak" unless attending an event where a poster has overheard her (and we do have posters who have spoken to her and heard her) it is also true that things can be edited to sound differently than they were spoken, but Charlene has repeated her stories so often it appears to be reliabe that she said it.

The PM rugby incident made "hard" news not tabloid fodder which is interesting. Laura Bush's belch was not deliberate but unfortunate and there is a difference there to. Of course if Mrs. Bush did it deliberating - well then that's rude isn't it? To my knowledge mods and admin. on this forum don't let things get too nasty infact they err on the side of concervative. Other threads on the Royal forum on other royals are much worse than what I have read on the Monaco forums to be honest. I think it just comes with the territory of blogging. We all take hits for our opinions at some point. JMO

I read the "hard news" in the link she provided. If that was proof of some huge embarrassment or misstep on the part of CW I am going to have to say once again that the only controversy is here in these Forums(which doesn't surprise me at all)

The article mentioned no one being offended or angry. It simply reported the conversation. None of the readers who responded to the article seemed upset or offended either.

 

[MyAdia]

Unless you are confusing me with someone else, you have not read any opinion from me on this board regarding Ms Wittstock's personality and character. I have stated many times that I admired a certain gown, or that I thought she was attractive, etc. I am a minority female and I couldn't care less about blond hair and blue eyes, so the reference to "Nazi propaganda" was a little out there, even for THIS place.


Thank you for the links you provided but I don't read Spanish, only French. And in the reader responses to the Gente Mondial article I find it fascinating that not ONE of the responses had a negative reaction to the incident with the French pol. As a matter of fact, when I read the article I changed my opinion. I had previously only read the recaps of it on this board, which made it sound like some huge international faux pas on the level of Laura Bush belching loudly at a State dinner at Buckingham Palace. Unbelievable.

I stand by my assertion that since no one at this Forum knows this woman personally, we have no true idea of her character flaws, motivations, etc. This forum is beginning to remind me of those 18th and 19th Centurys cabals and cliques one reads about in the memoirs of say...Saint Simon at the court of Lous XIV, where a bunch of women do nothing but sit around criticize, gossip and tear apart someone who is currently in favor at Court.

I'm also puzzled by your statement of being "attacked" by posters who are pro-Charlene.????? First of all, there are only one or two people here who have posted positive comments about the woman, I am among them. The positive comments are few and far between all the negativity. And I don't consider refuting or disagreeing with someone else's opinion "attacking" them. Attacking someone is calling them a name or denigrating them on some personal level....refuting or rejecting an opinion is NOT the same at all. At least not where I come from. I respect your opinion about Monaco, PA and CW. I just happen to disagree with it, which is fine.

Wow. You have provided a classic textbook example just with your last few posts that makes my point concerning Charlene. Please, indulge me. I have repeatedly stated that I have a problem with Charlene because her words are constantly contradicted by her actions and the spirit behind her words. Just today I provided her statement from Turin where she stated, "The Olympic Games are the priority and I get ready for JO of 2008 in Beijing." She repeated this claim in her Paris Match interview. Yet, many of us have noted that her actual behavior did not match her words. Even Charlene herself stated what it takes to make the Olympics. Again in 2001 she stated, “I'm improving all the time over 200 meters and the more international racing I do throughout world, the more experience I will gain. “ Since her Turin debut with Albert, Charlene has NOT ONCE competed internationally. Thus, why some of opined that Charlene’s words are shallow and insincere. She says what she has to say at the moment, but the true spirit behind her words are revealed by her actions.

You seem to disagree with me and others on our assessment of Charlene. You just stated the following words to me and another poster about our comments concerning Charlene:
“Well...okay. If you say so. I don't agree but I certainly respect your opinion.”
“MyAdia, with all due respect,…”,
“I respect your opinion about Monaco, PA and CW. I just happen to disagree with it,…”

These are great words CalifforniaDreamin! These are wonderful words that one would like to hear in an open forum. However, please understand one can easily question the true spirit and sincerity behind your mere words (as I and others have done about Charlene’s words) when you turn around minutes later and make statements such as these:

“…where a bunch of women do nothing but sit around criticize, gossip and tear apart someone who is currently in favor at Court.”
“What I find mind boggling about this forum is how so many of your are willing to judge this girl…”
“The increasingly strident and personal attacks on this girl…
Oops, originally you used the word cattiness to refer to our opinions, so I had to take it out the list.

Don’t you see, on one hand you state that you respect our right to have differing opinions, but yet you immediately turn around and berate us. Contradiction? Insincerity? Perhaps shallow words? This is how I view Charlene’s statement. That's all I have to say on this matter.

 

[MyAdia]

I read the "hard news" in the link she provided. If that was proof of some huge embarrassment or misstep on the part of CW I am going to have to say once again that the only controversy is here in these Forums(which doesn't surprise me at all)

The article mentioned no one being offended or angry. It simply reported the conversation. None of the readers who responded to the article seemed upset or offended either.

Please read the Le Point article agian, which is where the story was first reported. The first word in the article is: Aggravated - used to describe's Fillon's feelings toward Charlene's behavior. How could you miss that?

To thwart any more distortions of what exactly what was reported, here's a rough translation:

Aggravated by the cries of Charlene Wittstock, the friend of the Prince Albert II, at the time of the match of France-Argentina Rugby, Francois Fillon required of him, smile with the lips, and in English, to agree to calm herself. “I will stop when the French start to play”, answers her the South-African swimmer who supported the Argentinian team. Fillon: “Why, you know a little Rugby? ” Answer: “A little, my grandfather was the trainer of Springboks. ”

Do you honestly think that this would have been leaked/told to Le Point and then published if NO ONE was perturbed by her behavior? Unbelievable.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Please read the Le Point article agian, which is where the story was first reported. The first word in the article is: Aggravated - used to describe's Fillon's feelings toward Charlene's behavior. How could you miss that?

To thwart any more distortions of what exactly what was reported, here's a rough translation:



Do you honestly think that this would have been leaked/told to Le Point and then published if NO ONE was perturbed by her behavior? Unbelievable.

Yeah. "Unbelievable" is an apt word to use because I read the article AGAIN and still don't come away with the impression that the man found CW's behavior some type of outrageous offense. This is indeed a very rough translation, because the verb "agacer" does not necessarily translate that he was mad at her support for the team, but maybe her shouts/cheers were surprising to him?? Why is it that when an article comes out in Bunte or Point de Vue or Paris Match that is complimentary to the girl there is immediate scoffing on this board that it is nothing but Palace propanganda by PA's minions, but when it is something that might be perceived as negative it is gleefully repeated and reported as gospel??

And again...several readers responded to the article(in Le Point) Where is the condemnation I am reading here??

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Wow. You have provided a classic textbook example just with your last few posts that makes my point concerning Charlene. Please, indulge me. I have repeatedly stated that I have a problem with Charlene because her words are constantly contradicted by her actions and the spirit behind her words. Just today I provided her statement from Turin where she stated, "The Olympic Games are the priority and I get ready for JO of 2008 in Beijing." She repeated this claim in her Paris Match interview. Yet, many of us have noted that her actual behavior did not match her words. Even Charlene herself stated what it takes to make the Olympics. Again in 2001 she stated, “I'm improving all the time over 200 meters and the more international racing I do throughout world, the more experience I will gain. “ Since her Turin debut with Albert, Charlene has NOT ONCE competed internationally. Thus, why some of opined that Charlene’s words are shallow and insincere. She says what she has to say at the moment, but the true spirit behind her words are revealed by her actions.

You seem to disagree with me and others on our assessment of Charlene. You just stated the following words to me and another poster about our comments concerning Charlene:
“Well...okay. If you say so. I don't agree but I certainly respect your opinion.”
“MyAdia, with all due respect,…”,
“I respect your opinion about Monaco, PA and CW. I just happen to disagree with it,…”

These are great words CalifforniaDreamin! These are wonderful words that one would like to hear in an open forum. However, please understand one can easily question the true spirit and sincerity behind your mere words (as I and others have done about Charlene’s words) when you turn around minutes later and make statements such as these:

“…where a bunch of women do nothing but sit around criticize, gossip and tear apart someone who is currently in favor at Court.”
“What I find mind boggling about this forum is how so many of your are willing to judge this girl…”
“The increasingly strident and personal attacks on this girl…
Oops, originally you used the word cattiness to refer to our opinions, so I had to take it out the list.

Don’t you see, on one hand you state that you respect our right to have differing opinions, but yet you immediately turn around and berate us. Contradiction? Insincerity? Perhaps shallow words? This is how I view Charlene’s statement. That's all I have to say on this matter.

I don't have the time or inclination to respond to you point by point. I am beginning to feel somewhat like a spaniel chasing it's tail.

A couple of important things..making an OBSERVATION about the negative conduct on these boards does not constitue either an attack on your opinions on your right to it. At least one of the Moderators has commented on the negativity and has issued a warning about certain posters spreading unwarranted nastiness about CW on the Forums. Why was this necessary??

I did indeed remove the word"catty" because in retrospect I thought it was unnecessary and inappropriate. But my OBSERVATION about gossip at the court of Louis XIV stands. This is not a personal attack on you or anyone else. On the other hand questioning my sincerity certainly is, and I'd like to politely request that you not do it again. I am many things, insincere is not one.

I can and will continue to respect your right to have an opinion different from mine. If you feel that by refuting or disagreeing with your opinion I am "berating" or attacking you I don't know what to say. I suppose once again we are going to agree to disagree.

Vive la differance.

Just out of curiosity..I read a lot of outrage here about CW's "insincerity" regarding her swimming career. Perhaps she is being phony/insincere, but how do we know with 100% certainty that she is not training or preparing in some way? Is there some mole from the Palais Princier reporting on her day to day activities?

 

[Mandy]

I'm not putting up with bashing of another person anymore. This rehashing of old opinions has to stop.

I don't think that anyone can judge Charlene today according to yesterday's rules. This entire discussion is based on a 2001 interview, translated from what? We're talking about a time when she was totally dedicated to swimming. Of course, she had all those "nasty" attributes, like all other dedicated athletes. Some of the same attributes I had when I was studying for finals in my younger days. Some of the same attributes posters have when they want to prove their points.

Nothing is carved in rock; we can all change. I think it's time to move on, and see what Charlene can/not achieve. At least we'll have something new on which to comment. Or, are we too petty to give her a chance?

Mandy
Royal Forums Administrator

 

[MyAdia]

I'm not putting up with bashing of another person anymore. This rehashing of old opinions has to stop.

I don't think that anyone can judge Charlene today according to yesterday's rules. This entire discussion is based on a 2001 interview, translated from what? We're talking about a time when she was totally dedicated to swimming. Of course, she had all those "nasty" attributes, like all other dedicated athletes. Some of the same attributes I had when I was studying for finals in my younger days. Some of the same attributes posters have when they want to prove their points.

Nothing is carved in rock; we can all change. I think it's time to move on, and see what Charlene can/not achieve. At least we'll have something new on which to comment. Or, are we too petty to give her a chance?

Mandy
Royal Forums Administrator

I don't understand exactly what you are saying since you are posting as the Royal Forums Administrator. Is there now a time period restriction on what we can post concerning information about Charlene? You mentioned, "We're talking about a time when she was totally dedicated to swimming. "But, according to Charlene's own statements starting with her debut at the Turin Olympic in and until her latest Park Avenue interview published in Aug 2007, she stated that her only interest is swimming and making the Beiijing Olympics.

You have made yourself perfectly clear (with terms such as catty and petty) about how you feel about certain posters discussing Charlene's own statements that may not show her in the most positive light. But, can you please clarify what you mean by moving on. Are we not to discuss anything that she said in the year 2001 or less? Or any other time period starting today? When you say move on and see what she can achieve, I believe much of the discussion about Charlne has been in reference to her behavior since she has been with Prince Albert. So, what other achievements are you talking about? When you say give her a chance, what exactly does that mean as far as participation in this forum? Is participation in this forum now limited to certain viewpoints? Or posters not to discuss anything about her that's not positive? I don't remember this being the guideline for any other women (two in particular) that posters have discussed very passionately. I have never seen such instructions like this before concerning an individual in this forum. So, can you please be more explicit (spell it out) in what your warnings really mean in terms of participating in this forum?

 

[smdouglas]

Forum discussions get hotter and calmer. That is the nature of the beast.

I, for one, enjoy the discussions (except for the occasional non-duplication of someone's viewpoint and an occasional mis-stated "fact").

I take it from the viewpoint that these are someone else's lives we are talking about. We can't possibly know all of the facts or understand all of the factors in a particular situation, but the discussion of them (knowing these limitations) is good.

Thanks to each of you for your contributions!

 

[Mandy]

I don't understand exactly what you are saying since you are posting as the Royal Forums Administrator. Is there now a time period restriction on what we can post concerning information about Charlene? You mentioned, "We're talking about a time when she was totally dedicated to swimming. "But, according to Charlene's own statements starting with her debut at the Turin Olympic in and until her latest Park Avenue interview published in Aug 2007, she stated that her only interest is swimming and making the Beiijing Olympics.

You have made yourself perfectly clear (with terms such as catty and petty) about how you feel about certain posters discussing Charlene's own statements that may not show her in the most positive light. But, can you please clarify what you mean by moving on. Are we not to discuss anything that she said in the year 2001 or less? Or any other time period starting today? When you say move on and see what she can achieve, I believe much of the discussion about Charlne has been in reference to her behavior since she has been with Prince Albert. So, what other achievements are you talking about? When you say give her a chance, what exactly does that mean as far as participation in this forum? Is participation in this forum now limited to certain viewpoints? Or posters not to discuss anything about her that's not positive? I don't remember this being the guideline for any other women (two in particular) that posters have discussed very passionately. I have never seen such instructions like this before concerning an individual in this forum. So, can you please be more explicit (spell it out) in what your warnings really mean in terms of participating in this forum?

I see no reason to keep harping on the same issues and unearthing old articles just to express the same opinions ad nauseam. I think most members, by now, understand that you believe Charlene is leading a life of debauchery. So unless, there is new and recent evidence to support your claim(s), I suggest you cease and desist with this agenda.

Even if you feel offended by Charlene's behaviour, we expect your criticism of Charlene to stop well short of insult.

Remember, we keep this thread open for the sole purpose of keeping this nonsense out of the other threads.

Mandy

 

[MyAdia]

I see no reason to keep harping on the same issues and unearthing old articles just to express the same opinions ad nauseam. I think most members, by now, understand that you believe Charlene is leading a life of debauchery. So unless, there is new and recent evidence to support your claim(s), I suggest you cease and desist with this agenda.

Even if you feel offended by Charlene's behaviour, we expect your criticism of Charlene to stop well short of insult.

Remember, we keep this thread open for the sole purpose of keeping this nonsense out of the other threads.

Mandy

I get your message and I will leave. But, I do not think that Charlene is leading a life of debauchery. I think there are better role models of women to idolize than this woman. I think Charlene Wittstock is exactly whom she says she is and whom she has shown herself to be. The article I presented was an interview of Charlene that obviously included her own statements, motivations, and attitude (as well as most of the information that I presented). I think that her attitude displayed in her 2001 interview and her actions (giving her tell all interview) after her first date with Prince Albert in 2001 (ironically the same year) depicts the same person who just two weeks ago had no problem thinking it's perfectly acceptable for her to boisterously root for any team that she desired (as she let the Prime Minister of France who had the gall to confront her) regardless of the sensibilities of her hosts.

I became interested in Monaco after hearing about Prince Albert's son and his relationship with the mother. It was clear to me (and a lot of other people that posted on this board) that because of his misplaced and poor judgment, a woman with an agenda took advantage of him. Subsequently, this woman's follow-up actions, behavior, and attitude revealed her true nature. Less than one year later, revelations occurred again shown that this man had shown prior poor judgment in not discerning the true agenda of certain types of women.

Then this "blond bombshell," "Grace Kelly look a like" as she is deemed in the press comes onto the scene, and many people are gleeful because she represents the image that many much prefer to what they have seen graced across the tabloid front pages, which made Monaco and Prince Albert a laughing stock in many countries. I actually was a reader for six months before I ever posted anything about the first woman on this board. And I actually, didn't post anything about Charlene until reading and observing things until two months after she came onto the scene. I didn't come here with an agenda as you so think. I just happen to see in Charlene the same type of woman as the others and the same type of behavior. I never spread lies or hurled blind insults. I presented things that revealed Charlene's actions, behavior, and attitude presently (and as her 2001 interview indicated seems to be fixed).

Actually, I am not directly offended by Charlene's behavior. She is who she is and I have no interaction with her what so ever. I am offended by people that judge people solely by their looks. If Charlene looked like for instance the other two women that I mentioned above, I doubt that people who hurl insults at me (openly as this post or not so openly), would have had a difficult time understanding her actions and statements for what they exactly are. So, if Charlene didn't have the image and looks that people find so agreeable, when reading her 2001 first date tell-all interview they would have found her actions totally indiscreet (especially compared to other royal girlfriends). Or they would have probably believed Charlene when she says that she is selfish and self-absorbed as she did in her 2001 SuperSwimmer interview. Or they would have thought that a woman who attended an Olympic Opening Ceremony with an IOC member and a Sovereign Prince head of state and behaved as Charlene did in the stadium AND made statements about Turin being a great place for lovers - was at the least indiscreet. Or they would have thought that if that same woman then followed up her debut at Turin with a sit down interview just two weeks later, perhaps she was a self-promoter since the only justification for the interview was her relationship with Prince Albert. Further, I believe if Charlene looked like the two women that I discussed above and thus when she said that she only cared about swimming and her grades in school were not important, perhaps people would have found such a sentiment narrow-minded for the global environment that we live in today. Or they would have questioned Charlene's true motives and goals (or questioned her integrity) if she stated that she only cared about making SA's Olympic team, but her competition participation didn't correspond with any of her past actions to make an Olympic team (and succeeded) prior to her involvement with Prince Albert.

I could go further and discuss other items such as Charlene's recent Park Avenue photo shoot and compare it to another such woman's photo shoot in People magazine, but I have concluded that similar behavior does not matter because Charlene is so fortunate to have pleasing looks that people are willing to dismiss and overlook and any of her non-flattering and inconsistent statements. So, I am offended by people who find such behavior acceptable (or who dismisses or ignore such behavior) because the person who perpetrates it is attractive.

I believe that Prince Albert has a destiny to fulfill (besides his birth right). He entered his reign under worldwide humiliating media coverage. Less than a year later he endured it again, but not as much because the media soon latch onto the image of Charlene and so did Prince Albert. Obviously, the image of her was not enough because we still saw him with other women (I know some people dismiss the other women people because they cannot reconcile the fact that a man will cheat on someone who looks like Charlene or that she will accept it). However, now I think that Prince Albert is starting to realize that he really does have a higher purpose in his life and the humiliation he endured in the media is slowly residing. Slowly, I think he is realizing that an image is just that - an opinion or concept that is held by the public - and he is realizing that he should seek something real and authentic and not just and image of the type of woman that he wants.

Unlike many others, I always thought that this man hasn't married yet not because he doesn't believe in the institution of marriage - I think that he hasn't married because he actually believes in it very much. I never believed that Prince Albert waited almost 50 years of his life to enter in a marriage with someone like Charlene. So, as has confidence increases and he starts realizing that he the emperor really doesn't have on any clothes, the swimmer who doesn't really swim will be heading on to further conquests.

So, just because I or people like myself are suppressed from revealing or discussing information about Ms. Wittstock's behavior outside of the idolization of her pictures, does not make her behavior any less manipulative, selfish, or self-absorbed. In time, the truth will reveal itself.

 

[Elspeth]

See, this is one thing I don't understand about the points of view of our regular posters about Charlene. If I'm understanding you right, you're saying pretty much that after a couple of rather sordid episodes of affairs with a black woman and a hispanic woman, which resulted in the embarrassing revelations of illegitimate children that were almost certainly conceived deliberately on the part of the mothers, Albert is trying to rehabilitate his image (or provide a talking point and a diversion) by hooking up with, basically, a good-looking blonde bimbo. And that the racism implied by that action is offensive.

So why is Charlene the one who's on the receiving end of all the criticism and bashing? This whole business strikes me as a case of Albert thumbing his nose at the rest of the world and using her to do it. Women throughout history have been attracted to rich and powerful men - anthropologists would have you believe there are sound evolutionary reasons for it - so she isn't doing anything especially out of the ordinary in using her looks and her high profile as an Olympic athlete to get and hold Albert's attention. He's the one who's acting like a petulant child over this issue, and she's the one getting most of the blame for it.

In its way, this need to blame Charlene for Albert's situation is almost as bad a stereotype as what's been going on with Albert's own image-rescuing efforts, although it's a sexist one rather than a racist one.

 

[Ghislaine]

I see no reason to keep harping on the same issues and unearthing old articles just to express the same opinions ad nauseam.

The same thing has to be quoted over and over again because over and over again posters are posting these "fantasies" about Charlene that are disproven by Charlene's own words and actions. Most of Charlene's interviews are from 2006 and 2007, so hardly old. And while none of us can prove or disprove Charlene's training activities, fact is that she's barely competing (something that is very easy to prove).
I suspect I might be more sick of the repetition of the same old, same old than you. In fact, I've given up correcting posts/posters exactly because of that.

Even if you feel offended by Charlene's behaviour, we expect your criticism of Charlene to stop well short of insult.

I don't remember I've ever caught MyAdia insulting Charlene. I find her posts well written, balanced, well researched and based on facts, quotes and figures.

But, let's turn this around: I would like to ask anyone for any reasons why Charlene would make a good princess of Monaco and/or a good wife for Albert. And no, being blond, having blue eyes and being young enough to have children isn't good enough. Tell me Charlene's good qualities. With evidence. Post it here, PM me, e-mail me, send me a homing pigeon, whatever. I so want to be convinced. Seriously. Here's your chance to convert me to your point of view. The ones who think Charlene isn't suited are challenged to substantiate and prove that, I'd love to hear the same from the ones who think Charlene is perfect for the job.
Thank you very much in advance for your reactions, I'll be reading them with interest.

Remember, we keep this thread open for the sole purpose of keeping this nonsense out of the other threads.

Thank you, much appriciated.

 

[Elspeth]

But, let's turn this around: I would like to ask anyone for any reasons why Charlene would make a good princess of Monaco and/or a good wife for Albert. And no, being blond, having blue eyes and being young enough to have children isn't good enough. Tell me Charlene's good qualities. With evidence. Post it here, PM me, e-mail me, send me a homing pigeon, whatever. I so want to be convinced. Seriously. Here's your chance to convert me to your point of view.

Since Albert doesn't seem to be looking at her as a possible princess of Monaco if his statements about marriage are any clue, I think that being asked to provide evidence of her suitability for the role is something of a red herring. For the moment he seems to be using her as - pretty much - an accessory, and she's doing OK in that role.

Remember, we keep this thread open for the sole purpose of keeping this nonsense out of the other threads.

Thank you, much appriciated.

You're welcome.

 

[Mandy]

The same thing has to be quoted over and over again because over and over again posters are posting these "fantasies" about Charlene that are disproven by Charlene's own words and actions. Most of Charlene's interviews are from 2006 and 2007, so hardly old. And while none of us can prove or disprove Charlene's training activities, fact is that she's barely competing (something that is very easy to prove).
I suspect I might be more sick of the repetition of the same old, same old than you. In fact, I've given up correcting posts/posters exactly because of that.

Ghislaine, this is not directed only at you.

It's not that simple. With the constant nagging to disprove the so called "fantasies", we have managed to drive away the younger posters and the newly-interested posters. Driving someone away from this board because s/he has a favourable opinion of Charlene or has a difficult time posting his/ her opinion amid the pushier members somehow doesn't seem fair to me.

We have to somehow change the negative atmosphere so that everyone, new and old, can post here without fear of being verbally attacked for his/her views of Charlene and Albert. For that to happen, we need the cooperation of each and every member. That's all I'm asking.

 

[hibou]

Ghislaine, this is not directed only at you.

It's not that simple. With the constant nagging to disprove the so called "fantasies", we have managed to drive away the younger posters and the newly-interested posters. Driving someone away from this board because s/he has a favourable opinion of Charlene or has a difficult time posting his/ her opinion amid the pushier members somehow doesn't seem fair to me.

We have to somehow change the negative atmosphere so that everyone, new and old, can post here without fear of being verbally attacked for his/her views of Charlene and Albert. For that to happen, we need the cooperation of each and every member. That's all I'm asking.

On another forum where the "charlene" fans are in the minority, we have adopted a more fun approach. When they voice their opinions we kid with them and tell them they may well be right in the end. So far we have not chased them away and they keep posting. There must be a way to refer back to things from the past so that we don't keep repeating them. It seems like it goes in cycles. I just think some people take it more seriously than others. I know on your other threads about other royals things get heated but I don't see it getting quite so nasty or I just missed those posts. Perhapsvwe can adopt a bit of a sense of humor it might help? Just a thought.

 

[Elspeth]

I think part of why it's going in cycles is that this relationship isn't moving forward. It's static and ambiguous, and until the South African Olympic swimming team is announced, they can keep on with the story that she's really training. Once actual developments occur, things might improve. Until then, people seem to be being motivated by boredom with the situation and frustration at being given all these contradictory "explanations" about what's actually going on, if anything.

Humour is a useful tool as long as it isn't just a thin veneer over aggression or sarcasm.

Some of the stuff about Princess Mary of Denmark and (from time to time) some of the stuff about Queen Rania can get fairly unpleasant, to say nothing about the Diana-Camilla wars in the British forum, but the situations themselves are different from this because we're dealing with royal wives, not this semi-detached sort of thing.

 

[lilae]

On another forum where the "charlene" fans are in the minority, we have adopted a more fun approach. When they voice their opinions we kid with them and tell them they may well be right in the end. So far we have not chased them away and they keep posting. There must be a way to refer back to things from the past so that we don't keep repeating them. It seems like it goes in cycles. I just think some people take it more seriously than others. I know on your other threads about other royals things get heated but I don't see it getting quite so nasty or I just missed those posts. Perhapsvwe can adopt a bit of a sense of humor it might help? Just a thought.

Great hibou, censorship is too bad. One of our Monaco.freeforums members asked charlene's friends to post us.
... When posters have fun they stay or post a lot. Elspeth, you said we have to wait news about Olympic SA team... I can't wait !
I enjoy your "semi-detached sort of thing" I write elsewhere she's NOTHING.

 

[Glistening Seas]

Glistening Seas

people have mentioned before that PA said he refused to be "railroaded" into marriage by the press and anyone and he was right. tabloids seem to want to push him into marriage, understandably because when PA does get married tabloids will make money and looooots of it. however, they will make even "more' money when a disaster of a divorce hits as a result of being rushed. how many years was Prince Ranier in office when he got married does anyone know. It's best to think that when PA does find "the one" it will happen and no amount of pushing should be required to get him into imho

 

[Moonmaiden23]

On another forum where the "charlene" fans are in the minority, we have adopted a more fun approach. When they voice their opinions we kid with them and tell them they may well be right in the end. So far we have not chased them away and they keep posting. There must be a way to refer back to things from the past so that we don't keep repeating them. It seems like it goes in cycles. I just think some people take it more seriously than others. I know on your other threads about other royals things get heated but I don't see it getting quite so nasty or I just missed those posts. Perhapsvwe can adopt a bit of a sense of humor it might help? Just a thought.

hibou I love your suggestion about lightening it up with some humor, it's much needed. I just can't figure out how to do it without getting drawn into a nasty debate. When I found these Forums I was THRILLED because I love gossiping about Royalty and Aristos(I think they lead lives that are so much more interesting and substantial than most of the Hollywood types in the limelight) That's why I was dismayed with what I found when I came here.
I was just caught off guard because I didn't really see any balance or humor.

And let's be honest...there is quite a lot to laugh about regarding some of these noble families, Monaco is at the top of my list!

 

[Lillia]

See, this is one thing I don't understand about the points of view of our regular posters about Charlene. If I'm understanding you right, you're saying pretty much that after a couple of rather sordid episodes of affairs with a black woman and a hispanic woman, which resulted in the embarrassing revelations of illegitimate children that were almost certainly conceived deliberately on the part of the mothers, Albert is trying to rehabilitate his image (or provide a talking point and a diversion) by hooking up with, basically, a good-looking blonde bimbo. And that the racism implied by that action is offensive.

So why is Charlene the one who's on the receiving end of all the criticism and bashing? This whole business strikes me as a case of Albert thumbing his nose at the rest of the world and using her to do it. Women throughout history have been attracted to rich and powerful men - anthropologists would have you believe there are sound evolutionary reasons for it - so she isn't doing anything especially out of the ordinary in using her looks and her high profile as an Olympic athlete to get and hold Albert's attention. He's the one who's acting like a petulant child over this issue, and she's the one getting most of the blame for it.

In its way, this need to blame Charlene for Albert's situation is almost as bad a stereotype as what's been going on with Albert's own image-rescuing efforts, although it's a sexist one rather than a racist one.

Excellent and well articulated points Elspeth!

It is certainly the case that Albert lives in a rarified world where he is quite literally at the center of his own universe.

Wow.

MyAdia, with all due respect, your detailed synopsis of this one little photo goes much farther than my question. WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THE PHOTO?? I have no opinion of Ms Wittstock because other than what is reported of her in the media .I have never met the young woman. We have never had tea. I have never interviewed her family and friends. If she did indeed insult the French politican at the rugby match she is stupid and undiplomatic. But this says more about PA than it does her because he is content to parade the young woman around without a mentor.

What I find mind boggling about this forum is how so many of your are willing to judge this girl based on your SUBJECTIVE opinion of a photograph. If she is the monster some of you have assured us she is, why has there been not one leak in the press?? I went out and bought Paris Match last week for some type, ANY type of report on the incident with the French pol and I found nothing. Nada. Zip. Same for Le Monde.

The increasingly strident and personal attacks on this girl puzzled me when I first came here and they continue to do so. For the record, I don't think she is a great beauty either. But she is attractive enough. My honest opinion is that the Principality of Monaco is simply not important enough on the world stage where the Prince has to choose his bride as carefully as Spain, England,etc.

Why not wait and see if PA does indeed marry her, and then wait to judge her performance IF AND WHEN she becomes Princess? Is that out of the question?

My question would be for Albert about then why, with all of his connections, could he not find a suitable mentor for her? Certainly there are highly qualified persons who can train her to behave and clean up the way she interacts with dignitaries. They managed to get her some decent clothes and a haircut, and yes, she has cleaned up nicely. So, why after all this time no training in social graces? Has she even bothered to learn any French at all? One does not need to be super important nor royal to take on these things. It's just a matter of wanting to be developed as polite and interesting hostess as possible for guests, I would think -- rather than just being competitive and having a determination to win -- a little more refined with shift away from the mere physical aspect of things

Just look at CP Mathilde and and Princess Maxima. They're using their background to bring attention and create dialogue concerning microfinance. How about HM Queen Rania of Jordan? Some may critique her seeming obssession with haute couture, but she can attract an audience and hold an educated conversation at the World Economic Forum. She works with the UN Foundation and other high-profile political, social and economic forums. It is women like them that would help bring political legitimacy to Monaco (aside from internal housekeeping, of course).

Sorry, but I just don't see Charlene heading/hosting/speaking in a conference on anything like microfinance or participating in any conferences where there is some kind of even semi-heavy political discourse. What credibility would she have in such an arena? I can't even see her doing things like speaking for elementary education or awarding scholarships. Not that she cannot ever do it, I just do not see it at the moment.

I think she's Albert's sporting trophy girl (for better or worse) and that's it. I think she may have been invited for Albert to sponsor her for athletic work (like some other athletes) and they turned it into a little affair. Good for her. She can try to soak up some some more culture while she's there. JMO.

 

[goody7058]

If Charlene can train herself to speak at forum she do it like Mathilde and Maxima. You do need that kind of background to speak at forum. But who will listen to her she dropout and that bad. I wish she go back to school and get her GED.

 

[Jaya]

infinite jest

I have been reading the forums and I would kindly direct forum members to the lines of Hamlet regarding Yorrick when holding his skull because I think hibou's suggestion that we lighten up a lot very appropriate .
Until we have an announcement of betrothal between Pa & Cw ladies and gentlemen this idyll or whatever else anyone may wish to call it is the apotheosis of infinite jest.

 

[sandsla]

The same thing has to be quoted over and over again because over and over again posters are posting these "fantasies" about Charlene that are disproven by Charlene's own words and actions. Most of Charlene's interviews are from 2006 and 2007, so hardly old. And while none of us can prove or disprove Charlene's training activities, fact is that she's barely competing (something that is very easy to prove).
I suspect I might be more sick of the repetition of the same old, same old than you. In fact, I've given up correcting posts/posters exactly because of that.
I don't remember I've ever caught MyAdia insulting Charlene. I find her posts well written, balanced, well researched and based on facts, quotes and figures.

But, let's turn this around: I would like to ask anyone for any reasons why Charlene would make a good princess of Monaco and/or a good wife for Albert. And no, being blond, having blue eyes and being young enough to have children isn't good enough. Tell me Charlene's good qualities. With evidence. Post it here, PM me, e-mail me, send me a homing pigeon, whatever. I so want to be convinced. Seriously. Here's your chance to convert me to your point of view. The ones who think Charlene isn't suited are challenged to substantiate and prove that, I'd love to hear the same from the ones who think Charlene is perfect for the job.
Thank you very much in advance for your reactions, I'll be reading them with interest.
Thank you, much appriciated.

Well put, Gislaine

I have to jump in here, I think almost everyone's post has been excellent, MyAdia's, very articulate & intellegent posts, as well as everyone else's including Elspeth, who I mostly agree with. The fault is with Albert, for dating someone like Charlene & bringing her where she does not belong.

The reason Charlene get's the attention, one reason is because she has courted it! But we are always being asked to support are ill opinion and know matter how we back it up, we are bitched at (that is exactly the word for it) that we do not have a right to form an opinion, that is what we are told by the few who think a pretty face is a good enough reason for someone to marry someone, especially someone that may be in the position of Head of State's wife. Someone you would think that was dating a 50 year old would not need a mentor or training. I'm sure Camilla handles herself just fine. So, that said, it doesn't let Charlene off the hook for her behavior and that has been what the turn off has been for most from the beginning.

Mandy, I had to jump in here because, you are right the problem is that we have new (young?) people trying to take the informed (old?) people who have been following from the beginning, the ones that have seen all the photo's, read all Charlene's interviews, little quips, & remarks to task. We have seen all the posing, the pictures with Charlene's head in Albert's lap, on her first public outing where he is a member of th IOC, never mind a Head of State. Then her first official public picture where she accompanies the family for the first time, very inappropriatly dressed leaning over the balcony with a cigarette dangling out of her mouth. I'm sorry but we are talking again about te same person's attack on all of the people who don't share her opinion. We are continuosly told by her we have no right to judge or have or form the opinion that most of us hold! You might ask yourself why this is? Why do so many women who do not know each other, from different backgrounds, different ages, share the same opinion of this girl? You seem to want to have equel sides on this board? It's simply that people from all over have came to the same conclusion. I think if we were discussing George Bush we would have one side with far more weight. You cannot try to change what the concensus actually is? I'm sorry but the statement by the poster "you can't tell by one picture"? Pretty much makes the argument, we have some people who have seen a library of photos from one & every event, and one who wants to take everybody to task because she has only seen one picture? (We have all seen the many pictures from that event, with Charlene hanging on Albert) Again, if people are puzzled by our opinions, they should do their own research, it is not our job to catch them up & do the work for them. If they want to participate in the conversation, they should take the time to know what we are actually talking about, before trying to take us to task. The moderators seem to want to defend this immature behaviour? While trying to silence the majority of people that hold another opinion. We have had this same conversation about the same poster who keeps harping on us? There are some very smart accomplished women who post on this board, with a well reasoned opinion and they have a right to it. Unless this board is meant to be a Miss America pagent? The people that have posted above, have not gone in to anything other than Charlene's portrayed behavior? Not petty remarks on her looks, not her lack of formal education only Charlene's words about the lack of importance to it in her life?

There are people much newer to the board that seem to be able to get up to speed. I do not know why we have to continuosly coddle, conjole & make consessions for the same few that cannot be bothered or refuse to inform themselves before they open their mouths. I'm sorry but it seems to be the same poster's that are bent on causing the tirade. I don't think we should have to tolerate them because they want to remain ignorant to the topic. I vote we should move on and ignore and not reply to those posters. I can't help but to point out, that the problem we are having with the posters, is the same we have with Charlene.

 

[sandsla]

See, this is one thing I don't understand about the points of view of our regular posters about Charlene. If I'm understanding you right, you're saying pretty much that after a couple of rather sordid episodes of affairs with a black woman and a hispanic woman, which resulted in the embarrassing revelations of illegitimate children that were almost certainly conceived deliberately on the part of the mothers, Albert is trying to rehabilitate his image (or provide a talking point and a diversion) by hooking up with, basically, a good-looking blonde bimbo. And that the racism implied by that action is offensive.

So why is Charlene the one who's on the receiving end of all the criticism and bashing? This whole business strikes me as a case of Albert thumbing his nose at the rest of the world and using her to do it. Women throughout history have been attracted to rich and powerful men - anthropologists would have you believe there are sound evolutionary reasons for it - so she isn't doing anything especially out of the ordinary in using her looks and her high profile as an Olympic athlete to get and hold Albert's attention. He's the one who's acting like a petulant child over this issue, and she's the one getting most of the blame for it.

In its way, this need to blame Charlene for Albert's situation is almost as bad a stereotype as what's been going on with Albert's own image-rescuing efforts, although it's a sexist one rather than a racist one.

Tamara is hispanic? I might take issue with nothing out of the ordinary? Perhaps more like that hasn't been done before, (but never admired). I would agree with.