Camilla & Charles: What Is Your Opinion Now?

[Jo of Palatine]

as camilla was not acceptable back in the early 70's as she was used and tainted).

May I ask you please to refrain from using such ugly words for a behaviour which is very common and accepted in the Western world?

I myself have not been a virgin when I got married but I was definately never used by anyone and noone should dare call me tainted for that!

If you could point out other flaws of Camilla's character than we can discuss that but the fact that Camilla Shand is said to have enjoyed her female sexuality as a young woman does not IMHO give others the right to talk in such a condescending and judgmental way about her.

There are quite some princesses today who had or even have a similar lifestyle to Camilla before they married - are they all used goods in your eyes?

You may see it that way but please, realize that you not only judge Camilla but others as well on using such petty and old-fashioned phrases. Having a good relation to ones body and ones sexuality does not mean one is tainted.
Thanks very much.

--moderator's note: The original post Jo of Palatine referred to was deleted for the same reasons that Jo so well describes. Because Jo's response is so reasoned and well-written, and reflects the moderator's opinion in general of the level of the discussion that we're trying to promote here, we feel it is to the benefits of the members for Jo's response to remain. We've deleted the identity of the individual who made the original post to protect their privacy.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I had not heard the story of Camilla actually finding Diana as a suitable womb for Charles until reading this thread, but apparently numerous reliable sources exist (Princess Michael of Kent being one) who claim that Diana's role was to be a womb for Charles.

Of course it was her role. She was to be the wife of the heir and it was expected of her to become the mother of the next in line and some spares, too. That's a fact in any family where there are heirlooms.

So I'm convinced the fact whether Diana could become a mother was a very important point in the final decision of the prince to ask for her hand in marriage.

What I'm not convinced about it the interpretation many people put onto these fact. Just think of the world Prince and Princess Michael live in. It is a world based on inheritance. So why should they talk about this pretty normal topic in their world with the amount of negativeness that is interpreted into their words? It makes no sense to me.

Diana herself grew up in a world where her brother was the heir due to male primogeniture, even though he was the youngest. So for her the role of "mother of the next king" was not a negative thing but simply described part of her new responsibilities.

It is sad, yes, that Charles did find the perfect mother for his sons but not the love of his life. But does the fact that the love ended mean that Diana wasn't still respected as the mother of the princes? I don't see that - I got the feeling that there was never any tries from the palace to "steal" the boys from their mother. Even Sarah, duchess of York is still around, when something important happens in the life of her daughters - does that fact reduce her to the "womb" of the duke of York? No, on the contrary it shows at least to me that the women who became the mothers of the new generation of Windsors are still treasured for that - even though they no longer belong to the family itself.

 

[ysbel]

Over the last hour, we've reviewed the thread, removed most of the most inflammatory comments and pruned the discussion to the most salient and relevant points. Our primary goal was not to ensure total evenhandness in the posts we deleted from members but to save the discussion.

We made a couple of exceptions to save the content of the discussion; these exceptions will not be made again.

1. The womb for the crown comment was allowed because deleting it would make nonsense of much of the following two pages. Posts like that which dismissively refer to a person as a thing are inflammatory and will not be allowed in the future.
2. We occasionally deleted a post and kept the response to it. In that case it was because the responding post was a good example of the level of the discussion we expect in the British forum and it is hoped that they will serve as an example.
3. Some discussion of the direction of the thread was not deleted when normally it would be. This is because the moderators are tired of saying the same thing over and over and not being listened to. It is hoped that hearing the same thing from a member will make it sink in for some people.

Before posting, may we remind everyone of the following guidelines:

1. Don't just post your opinions but think about them and try to explain why you think as you do so that others can understand.
2. When basing your opinion, stick to what you reasonably can know for certain and remember that none of us can know for sure the inner dynamics of any relationship of people we don't know.
3. Avoid purely visceral emotional responses that contribute nothing to the discussion and may well offend other members. Remember that not everyone will agree on a single royal and while we all want open and honest discussions, primarily we need to provide a conducive environment for people to share their passion for royalty without encountering undue hostility.
4. Remember, we're here to have fun! TRF is a great place to be because of the camaraderie we find with other members. Our opinions can change over time but the connections we make with other royal followers on the boards can last though several changes in our thoughts and attitudes towards royals who we cannot possibly know as well as we can get to know other members on this board.

ysbel, Warren, Elspeth
British forums moderating team

 

[Skydragon]

I like Camilla, I have always liked Camilla, she seems to be the type of friend that you just know would never repeat anything you have confided in her and because of that her friends would never repeat anything, IMO.

This last year has shown us all how happy she makes Charles and how much people, once they have met her, like her. Nobody is going to have 100% of people liking them, so does it matter if some don't - no.

What do we actually know about Camilla, from Camilla or her friends - nothing but, as I said.... I like her and have always liked her.

 

[Nad25]

I completly understand some comments on Camilla and how some people really dislike her for what happend in the past, and theres others who adore her, each person has their reasons to why they dislike or like Camilla but why take things to heart?? In the end of the day none of us really personally know her only her family and her closest friends, as far as im concerned the Royal Family have put whatever happend in the past way behind them, why do people drag the past over and over again??

 

[Skydragon]

I completly understand some comments on Camilla and how some people really dislike her for what happend in the past, and theres others who adore her, each person has their reasons to why they dislike or like Camilla but why take things to heart??
In the end of the day none of us really personally know her only her family and her closest friends, as far as im concerned the Royal Family have put whatever happened in the past way behind them, why do people drag the past over and over again??

Thats where you and I differ, I can't understand how anyone can dislike someone when they don't know them in any way, shape or form, based on what someone they didn't know may or may not have said.

But, I respect your right to put whether you like her or not, without either of us having a ducky fit. As with anyone, all I ask is that people try to back up what they have written with proven facts, not post endless rumour and spite.

The rest of the royal family appear to like her, Charles loves her and at the end of the day, that is all that matters.

 

[Roslyn]

Two of the things I like about Camilla are the fact she is very down to earth and has a sense of humour. I've read that this is the case, but we are getting the chance to see that it is indeed so as she gets about performing engagements. I found this link on another thread:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006230152,00.html

Look at the article on the right hand side of the page, about a goat trying to take Camilla's handbag from her. She saw the funny side and said the goat just wanted to join the party. That made me smile. I like her.

 

[Little_star]

It is NOT a crime to befriend someone with the genuine thought of offering the hand of friendship, but I find it very disgusting when someone may have ulterior motives for offering the hand of friendship- and in this case and in my personal opinion, there were ulterior motives to befriend and get close to Diana, Princess of Wales, from camilla.

I agree completely. I don't doubt that Camilla is now doing a good job as Charles' consort, the evidence is out there for people to see. However I do believe she befriended Diana with ulterior motives and for that reason I find it hard to like her as a person. To me, it suggests a certain calculated and indeed maliciousness of character that I just don't like.

 

[Little_star]

Thats where you and I differ, I can't understand how anyone can dislike someone when they don't know them in any way, shape or form, based on what someone they didn't know may or may not have said.

By rights then, nobody should dislike politicians or celebrities. I hope you don't mind me saying so but I find that a very simplistic viewpoint.

 

[Skydragon]

I agree completely. I don't doubt that Camilla is now doing a good job as Charles' consort, the evidence is out there for people to see. However I do believe she befriended Diana with ulterior motives and for that reason I find it hard to like her as a person.

Where and what is the evidence for the ulterior motives?

What purpose would it have served? After all most mistresses keep themselves away from the wife.

She is doing a good job as Charles' wife and the future Queen.

 

[Skydragon]

By rights then, nobody should dislike politicians or celebrities. I hope you don't mind me saying so but I find that a very simplistic viewpoint.

Is it as simple as believing everything one person told you.

I prefer not to judge anyone on what someone else has said. I neither like nor dislike any celebrity or politician based on gossip, hearsay or the job they do. I listen to what they have said, how they have said it and see what they have done, as the person they want to portray can and normally is, totally different to the real one.

To dislike someone based on what someone else has said is as bad as judging someone by the colour of their skin , the job they do, where they live or what sex they are.

Camilla is doing a brilliant job as wife to the future King and patron of a growing number of charities and if anyone feels the need to judge someone else, they should take into account the tremendous love and support she appears to receive from the people who do actually know her!

 

[Little_star]

Where and what is the evidence for the ulterior motives?

What purpose would it have served? After all most mistresses keep themselves away from the wife.

She is doing a good job as Charles' wife and the future Queen.

I didn't say I had evidence, I merely said I believed it to be true, it's just my opinion of the situation. I don't believe that she would have been completely objective or detached.

Where is your evidence that she was without an ulterior motive?

As for the behaviour of mistresses, it's a subject I cannot comment on, not having ever found myself in such an unfortunate situation. I do however, doubt that there is a standard "style" in which mistresses behave.

I don't disagree with your last comment, she is doing a god job, I've never said otherwise, I do question her motives over decions made in the pat though. But then the past is past.

 

[Skydragon]

Where is your evidence that she was without an ulterior motive?

As for the behaviour of mistresses, it's a subject I cannot comment on, not having ever found myself in such an unfortunate situation. I do however, doubt that there is a standard "style" in which mistresses behave.

I don't disagree with your last comment, she is doing a god job, I've never said otherwise, I do question her motives over decions made in the pat though. But then the past is past.

When making an accusation, the accuser has to show the evidence they are relying on, to come to the conclusion they have. Even in a court of law, evidence has to be produced to show that someone is guilty of an accusation, if the prosecution can't do that, they are not guilty.

Talking to anyone who has been divorced will show you that on the whole, the wife was the last to know and in the majority of cases did not mix socially with the mistress, very few are friends with the wife (although I am sure this also happens).

As I said we have no evidence of what decisions she may have made in the past or on the truth about what has been said. She should be judged on what she is doing for the royal family (showing them as a united unit) and her husband. Judging people solely on the past can be dangerous, after all that nasty, horrible teenager might grow up to be a person who is hard working and loved by many!

 

[ysbel]

None of us here are going to know exactly what happened at anytime in Charles and Camilla's life so, as Elspeth said, there's going to be a certain amount of speculation for any idea we propose. It helps if the idea is specific rather than a general sense of someone having ulterior motives.

Evidence if you have it is preferred and most of the time it is going to be people who say something. What we're looking for are the reasons you think the person should be believed about what you're talking about. It may be because there's confirmation in some action or behavior that most of us could see - these are public figures after all. Or it could just be because they said it at a time before people started having agendas.

I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about. I don't think Camilla 'found' Diana for Charles. Reasons? Diana already had a lot of connections to his family. Her grandmother was lady in waiting to the Queen Mother, her father rented a residence off Sandringham from the Queen where the Spencers stayed every year while the Royal Family was in residence in Sandringham, Charles had dated Diana's older sister, Sarah, for awhile. This was all widely reported before the marriage broke down when camps were not divided into Charles and Diana supporters (and in Sarah's case and the case of Diana's grandmother before the press ever heard of Diana) so the ulterior motives of people reporting it were not set yet.

Charles may have asked his friends to help him find someone suitable, it has happened with other people before, but I don't believe that Charles needed Camilla or any of his other friends to find Diana for him because for obvious reasons, his family could do that.

 

[BeatrixFan]

I can now give evidence that Camilla 'found' Diana for Charles. From an interview with Countess Mountbatten of Burma last year on the ITV programme, "Charles and Camilla";

(Taken from the recording word for word)

Camilla said to him, you can't have me. The country won't accept it, your family won't accept it and so that's that. And he said that if he couldn't have her then he wanted her to suggest suitable partners to him. It wasn't anything seedy but its the way things were done. He was linked to a Princess of Luxembourg - the press were ready to break that story. Camilla came across Diana and suggested her to Charles and he ran it past the Queen Mother, not the Queen, but the Queen Mother. So you see, it was strange, because although Charles loved Diana and I believe he truly did, he loved Camilla to a degree where he could say, "If I can't have you, I want someone you suggest".

Gyles Brandreth includes phrases from that in his book, "A Portrait of a Love Affair" and a clip from it was used on a Channel 4 programme for the Queen's 80th.

 

[Little_star]

When making an accusation, the accuser has to show the evidence they are relying on, to come to the conclusion they have. Even in a court of law, evidence has to be produced to show that someone is guilty of an accusation, if the prosecution can't do that, they are not guilty.

I wasn't presenting it as a fact though, just my opinion. If that wasn't clear in my post then it is my fault.After all it's your opinion that Camilla will be a great Queen, that's not a fact per se.

Talking to anyone who has been divorced will show you that on the whole, the wife was the last to know and in the majority of cases did not mix socially with the mistress, very few are friends with the wife (although I am sure this also happens).

As I said before I don't think there is a "norm" when it comes to adultery. I've known people whose husband/wife has had an affair with a close friend and in one instance a female relation.

As I said we have no evidence of what decisions she may have made in the past or on the truth about what has been said. She should be judged on what she is doing for the royal family (showing them as a united unit) and her husband. Judging people solely on the past can be dangerous, after all that nasty, horrible teenager might grow up to be a person who is hard working and loved by many!

I agree with your sentiment that people shoudn't just judge others based solely on actions done in their youth. However to use your example of a teenager, Camilla was a married adult woman with children so it's not exactly the same.

We've both gone off topic though. In the here and no, I think Camilla and Charles are doing a good job in that they are clearly hardworking and dedicated to he position they fill.

 

[BeatrixFan]

And I just add this, not as a dig or to stir trouble, but because it's relevant today with the anniversary and all;

From the Brandreth book. The Duchess of Grafton (before the wedding);

"Diana didn't like the Prince's Trust very much and so she quite often refused to attend events or work for it and I don't know why but I suspect Diana had a different idea about how charity should work. Camilla sees that the Trust is Charles's legacy and so she supports him in that almost in the role of a consort and wife. She encourages him where Diana didn't. She seemed to want the encouragement for herself".

 

[AgnesK]

I didn't say I had evidence, I merely said I believed it to be true,

The thing is that all that stuff was given from Diana and she was the last person who you can call reliable source of Camilla's motives.

 

[Nad25]

Thats where you and I differ, I can't understand how anyone can dislike someone when they don't know them in any way, shape or form, based on what someone they didn't know may or may not have said.

But, I respect your right to put whether you like her or not, without either of us having a ducky fit.

Lol i dont know if i misunderstood you or you have misunderstood me ..i never said that i like Camilla neither dislike her, i was only pointing out that really non of us really know her persoanlly and that people shouldnt take opinions and views of others to their hearts, thats all my point of view was, but i still think that she's a person whos clearly making the Prince of Wales very happy man and also his own kids lover her to bits and have put whatever happend before she came into their lives in the past and moved on with life.

 

[Elspeth]

I can now give evidence that Camilla 'found' Diana for Charles. From an interview with Countess Mountbatten of Burma last year on the ITV programme, "Charles and Camilla";

(Taken from the recording word for word)

Camilla said to him, you can't have me. The country won't accept it, your family won't accept it and so that's that. And he said that if he couldn't have her then he wanted her to suggest suitable partners to him. It wasn't anything seedy but its the way things were done. He was linked to a Princess of Luxembourg - the press were ready to break that story. Camilla came across Diana and suggested her to Charles and he ran it past the Queen Mother, not the Queen, but the Queen Mother. So you see, it was strange, because although Charles loved Diana and I believe he truly did, he loved Camilla to a degree where he could say, "If I can't have you, I want someone you suggest".

Gyles Brandreth includes phrases from that in his book, "A Portrait of a Love Affair" and a clip from it was used on a Channel 4 programme for the Queen's 80th.

The papers went public with the Marie Astrid story in 1976 or 1977, when Diana was only something like 15 or 16. Is Countess Mountbatten suggesting that Camilla had her eye on Diana as a possible consort when she was still a schoolgirl, or am I misunderstanding the timing she's referring to?

 

[BeatrixFan]

I have no idea Elspeth. That's what she said. I mean, she's in her 80s now I think so she's allowed to get things wrong. But then again, is it really that outrageous a suggestion? Diana was 19 when they made things official so maybe 3 years before isn't that much of a jump. Who knows?

 

[ysbel]

Interesting Elspeth. I thought it was later than that but apparently the Daily Express printed a story about Charles' and Marie-Astrid's impending engagement in 1977, so you're right. I wonder if that's when Lady Mountbatten referred to. I know Diana was at a Swiss finishing school sometime in 1977 and moved to London in 1978 because all her movements were widely reported when the engagement was announced.

I'm not inclined in general to disbelieve Lady Mountbatten but it looks like at least one of the times Charles and Diana met was through her sister, Sarah. He had broken up with Sarah by about this time but they were still friends (as appears to be a habit with Charles) and he invited her to his 30th birthday party in 1978. Apparently Sarah asked if her little sister could come along and Charles said yes. I can't remember though exactly when Sarah and Charles dated.

 

[BeatrixFan]

I've heard that story true but it's a little too fairy tale for my liking. It could have happened that way, but I think that actually Lady M is right but maybe the Queen Mother and Lady Fermoy really DID match Charles and Diana up after Camilla suggested her to Charles.

 

[redfox6]

While reading through this site, I think some of you may have missed the fact that it was the BRF who set the standards for acceptibility. How people feel about Camilla is really irrelevant to that standard. Their standard said she was "unsuitable, used goods, so to speak". If he had married her then, other than the "High and Mighty Precepts" of the BRF, who would have cared? Instead, one life was really ruined, the Princess's, Charles and Camilla spent 30 years cheating and in the end they are together. Now, it is okay. It is hypocrisy at its worst. She is a good wife to him and he loves her. Maybe, if Charles had shown Diana the same kind of love, things would be different. You can argue this forever. It won't change anything. Today is today and yesterday is gone. Also, deleting posts because you disagree with them is also hypocrisy. Everyone is entitled to an opinion nice or not. Don't pose a question if you do not want to hear alternate answers.

 

[Skydragon]

Lol i dont know if i misunderstood you or you have misunderstood me ..i never said that i like Camilla neither dislike her, i was only pointing out that really non of us really know her personally and that people shouldnt take opinions and views of others to their hearts, thats all my point of view was, but i still think that she's a person whos clearly making the Prince of Wales very happy man and also his own kids love her to bits and have put whatever happend before she came into their lives in the past and moved on with life.

No, I think it was me that put it badly. You said: -
I completly understand some comments on Camilla and how some people really dislike her for what happend in the past.
I don't understand how anyone can make absolute judgements without the facts or at least both sides of the story.
I don't disagree with you on any other points and I am sorry if anyone thought I did!

 

[ysbel]

I've heard that story true but it's a little too fairy tale for my liking. It could have happened that way, but I think that actually Lady M is right but maybe the Queen Mother and Lady Fermoy really DID match Charles and Diana up after Camilla suggested her to Charles.

You may have a point about the fairytale part, BeatrixFan .

With Charles' tendency to depend on his friends, it makes total sense that Charles asked one of his friends to help him find someone and that he asked Camilla's opinion of Diana. What doesn't make sense is that he asked Camilla to find someone for him and she ended up finding Diana when he had so many other opportunities to meet Diana outside Camilla.

The birthday party I mentioned wasn't the only place Charles and Diana were said to have met through Sarah. In one of the videotapes Diana made for the Andrew Morton book, she did mention being around Charles and Sarah when they dated. Diana also mentioned in another tape about coming up to Charles after Lord Mountbatten's funeral in 1979. I think a lot of the things said in the videotapes were exaggerated but whatever agenda Diana may have had when she made the tapes, I don't see how making up a story that she was with Charles and Sarah when she wasn't would help any agenda she had.

 

[Skydragon]

Instead, one life was really ruined, the Princess's, Also, deleting posts because you disagree with them is also hypocrisy. Everyone is entitled to an opinion nice or not. Don't pose a question if you do not want to hear alternate answers.

I think deleting totally off topic posts is great and I lose as many as others. I get fed up with the same old, same old of how only one life was affected by Charles and Camillas affair, the convenient amnesia regarding the other guilty party and her affairs and what effect that had on the other wives and children involved.
As someone who is pro Camilla and regularly gets posts deleted, I have to say on the whole our moderators try to be fair and evenhanded!

 

[ysbel]

While reading through this site, I think some of you may have missed the fact that it was the BRF who set the standards for acceptibility. How people feel about Camilla is really irrelevant to that standard. Their standard said she was "unsuitable, used goods, so to speak". If he had married her then, other than the "High and Mighty Precepts" of the BRF, who would have cared? Instead, one life was really ruined, the Princess's, Charles and Camilla spent 30 years cheating and in the end they are together. Now, it is okay. It is hypocrisy at its worst. She is a good wife to him and he loves her. Maybe, if Charles had shown Diana the same kind of love, things would be different. You can argue this forever. It won't change anything. Today is today and yesterday is gone. Also, deleting posts because you disagree with them is also hypocrisy. Everyone is entitled to an opinion nice or not. Don't pose a question if you do not want to hear alternate answers.

redfox I definitely agree with you that the BRF set the standards for acceptibility but if you want to question a moderator's decision on deleting posts, we ask you as we have asked the rest of the members to send us a private message rather than post it on the boards. This is standard on all the forums on The Royal Forums.

 

[Kelly]

You may have a point about the fairytale part, BeatrixFan .

With Charles' tendency to depend on his friends, it makes total sense that Charles asked one of his friends to help him find someone and that he asked Camilla's opinion of Diana. What doesn't make sense is that he asked Camilla to find someone for him and she ended up finding Diana when he had so many other opportunities to meet Diana outside Camilla.

That is true, didn't Charles go out with Diana's sister once?

 

[love_cc]

Charles and Diana's marriage was sad, but how about the life of Edward VIII? At least the history didn't repeat itself and Charles married Diana and had two boys as his heirs. I think it was Diana's destiny to be the mother of the heirs of Prince Charles but it was Camilla's destiny to support and encourage Prince Charles to be a great Prince of Wales and a great king.

I only regarded Camilla as one of the key influencers in Charles's decision to marry Diana. Other key influencers were Queen Mother, Lady Fermoy, the press and the people. The press pushed the idea of "Shy Di is the ideal bride for Prince of Wales" and this forced Charles to think he should marry Diana to please his people and his family. Marriage is a part of his duty and we should accept that. Even it was cruel, but Charles's marriage would be never a love match. At least Charles used his tragedy to allow William to marry for love in the future.