Camilla & Charles: What Is Your Opinion Now?


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Skydragon said:
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! :)

Its alright to agree or disagree with each other because we all different personalities and have different views as well, theres no need to apologize it was an honest misunderstanding really:) ;)
 
love_cc said:
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.
Oftentimes people point a finger at the press as being a culprit for celebrity breakups but it seems more likely that when you are the heir to a throne you really could care less about what they report and are more interested in what politicians want.
 
BeatrixFan said:
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.

It's interesting that once the marriage went sour, Lady Fermoy was reported as having warned Diana that she didn't think it would be a good idea, yet before the wedding she was credited as one of the matchmakers along with her chum the Queen Mother. Methinks some Spencer spin may have been involved there:D or maybe the Queen Mother didn't want to be seen as complicit in such an abject failure. The press didn't make the connection about Camilla advising Charles until some time later, if I'm remembering the timing right. I don't know if that was because Diana talked about it to someone or if someone else let it slip. I'm pretty sure that Camilla's (and Dale Tryon's) vetting of Charles's girlfriends was known early on, if not even at the time of the engagement, but the notion that Camilla had basically arranged Charles's marriage is a bit more recent.
 
Last edited:
ysbel said:
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.

I appologize for not knowing that rule about post removal. It was not my post. I just wanted everyone to be treated fairly.

As to Charles, he is a spoiled, self-centered person. He loves Camilla because she fawns all over him. Camilla is smart, because she knows what side her "bread is buttered on" and has held on for 30 years and that has paid off. He accused his parents of being distant and cold, in the Dimbleby book. His mother thinks he is too extravagant, from the Brandeth book, Philip and Elizabeth. Diana and he both needed love and nurturing, neither could give it to the other. Diana cheated after he lead the way and wanted to have a back at you. Too bad for all.
 
It's all a big game of what ifs in the end. For every action there is a reaction. Either positive or negative. If Prince Charles and Camilla hadn't been carrying on (according to all the biographies I've read) maybe Diana wouldn't have had cause to do the things she did. It doesn't make her right. But again, I don't think people overlook what she did or her wrongs, I think people see her as a victim who made bad choices because she was for lack of a better word, a victim. Again that whole underdog theory comes into play.

But here's the thing to get this back on topic: Times are a changing, and the point is that what the BRF before and during HM's reign held as the standards for their family is changing. The Queen has approved of Camilla enough to allow the marriage to happen. And as much as I love HM she is not without fault. She could have put her foot down a long time ago and allowed Camilla and Charles to wed, then Diana would never have been in the equation. And Prince Charles it seems couldn't or wouldn't stand up to him Mummy to tell that he was in love and was choosing love. He did his duty. Now Camilla is princess and Charles is happy because he has his love. I think that played a major role in the Queen and church allowing the marriage. This man is going to be king one day, and when he is wouldn't it be better to have a king who is happy than to have one who isn't? Camilla makes him happy.

You know what Camilla and Charles represent to me? They represent the British way of life. On the one hand you guys can be very traditional about things, but at the same time you have that rebellion thing going on too. A need to be modern. That's what this couple is. Charles is very traditional but he's got a lot of modern ideas. And the fact that he and Camilla are married reflects that.
 
Last edited:
If Prince Charles and Camilla hadn't been carrying on (according to the biographies) maybe Diana wouldn't have had cause to do the things she did.

As the agony aunt, Anna Raeburn often says, "We dont behave badly because someone else does, we behave badly because we want to and that's that". I for one totally agree with her.

As to Charles, he is a spoiled, self-centered person. He loves Camilla because she fawns all over him. Camilla is smart, because she knows what side her "bread is buttered on" and has held on for 30 years and that has paid off.

I'm sorry but that is just wrong. If Charles was self-centered, would he bother with his charity work? No, he'd say, "Bugger the lot" and live a life of pleasure which he hasn't done. He works hard and I think it's very very unfair to say he's self-centered. He was never spoilt. The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh made sure he wasn't spoilt. He certainly wasn't spoilt at Gordonstoun nor in the Navy.

Camilla may fawn over him, but what else is love? I know that in my relationships, I've fawned over people I've been with because it's just the natural thing to do. When the love in the relationship goes, you don't. The love in their relationship has never gone so it's natural she should tell him he does good things, that he's good looking etc.

Camilla had a fair amount of money before she met Charles. She certainly didn't and doesn't need to be with Charles for financial security and we know it isn't for publicity so I find that completely ridiculous.

Diana cheated after he lead the way and wanted to have a back at you.

She wanted to get her own back but can we honestly say that that's acceptable because Charles was having an affair? Two wrongs don't make a right.

You know what Camilla and Charles represent to me? They represent the British ways of life. On the one hand you guys can very traditional about things, but at the same time you have that rebellion thing going on too. A need to be modern. That's what this couple is. Charles is very traditional but he's got a lot of modern ideas. And the fact that he and Camilla are married reflects that.

I agree. As I said before, we like tradition and we set our expectations. For example, in the early 20th century we didn't want our Royal Family marrying commoners. They married foreign Princes and Princesses and now people criticise the RF for having foreign blood. We can be hypocrites but it's just acceptable. We don't think twice about it.
 
As to Charles, he is a spoiled, self-centered person. He loves Camilla because she fawns all over him. Camilla is smart, because she knows what side her "bread is buttered on" and has held on for 30 years and that has paid off. He accused his parents of being distant and cold, in the Dimbleby book. His mother thinks he is too extravagant, from the Brandeth book, Philip and Elizabeth. Diana and he both needed love and nurturing, neither could give it to the other. Diana cheated after he lead the way and wanted to have a back at you. Too bad for all.


It is not strange for me to know that Camilla loves in Charles in a mothering way. It's Camilla's mothering features that will heal the past pains in Charles's heart since his childhood. I find it wonderful and touching. Camilla loves Charles in a much deeper way than we thought. She provides him sufficient attention, love, support, encouragment ,praise, warmth, understanding, steadiness, ressuarance,comfort to ensure Charles felt he is loved and wanted. I just felt pity for Charles's life because he failed to gain those things from his parents and his first wife. For me, Camilla is a precious gift happened to Charles's wife which can heal his unpleasant past and create his future.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What??? Camilla love the Prince of Wales in a motherly way?? What makes any one think like that!!!:confused: Shes only like two years older than him!

I think what you'll find in the two that they got a lot in common and they both share similar interests icluding their love for one another thats lasted for yearssss!
 
Elspeth said:
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?

I doubt whether Charles was seriously looking at a Luxemburg princess as a possible wife as Marie Astrid is catholic and if they had married he would have lost his place in the line of succession, therefore she was not an appropriate future bride. The newspapers in the mid 70's when Marie Astrid was studying English in the UK went overboard on the speculation that she was to be a possible bride, so much so that the media exposure drove Marie Astrid to leave the UK. The newspapers also tried to link Charles with Princess Caroline of Monaco ( another catholic).

I think Countess Mountbatten's recount is somewhat hazy as to events and what was said. The more likely scenario, rather than Camilla choosing Diana for Charles would have been him saying "What do you think of Diana?" As already stated she was already part of his orbit, she wasn't a complete stranger in his world.
 
At the time the press here were saying that Princess Marie Astrid was "the Queen's choice". The religion question was glossed over; maybe the assumption was that she would gladly become an Anglican to achieve her destiny. :)

I still have (somewhere) an old story about [Crown] Princess Margarita of Romania when she was being touted as a possible consort for Charles, along with Princess Xenia of Prussia, and if I recall correctly, Princess Marita of Schleswig-Holstein. No doubt there were many other names bandied around, with the same level of credibility as the "Caroline of Monaco for Charles" speculation.
 
Elspeth said:
I think the statement made by the Countess of Airlie about George VI, at the time he was proposing to Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon and being rejected by her, is being very well demonstrated in his grandson; she said that George VI (or the Duke of York, as he then was) was someone who would be made or marred by his wife.

Prince Charles and his first wife unfortunately just damaged each other; he's almost a different person these days, now he has a wife who bolsters his self-confidence.

As an avid Diana watcher, I didn't particularly care for Camilla back when the speculation began that Charles had resumed his affair with Camilla--and this had plunged Diana into a state of despair. But much has been learned/revealed since then and, Elspeth, your Countess of Arlie quote sums up the dynamic between Camilla and Charles perfectly. They "fit" together. Both look genuinely happy and pleased to be in one another's company--and that sense of well-being seems to emanate to those they meet. It's a highly complimentary relationship. I think the measures of respect they show one another are good examples for all couples. :)
 
Elspeth said:
It's interesting that once the marriage went sour, Lady Fermoy was reported as having warned Diana that she didn't think it would be a good idea, yet before the wedding she was credited as one of the matchmakers along with her chum the Queen Mother. Methinks some Spencer spin may have been involved there:D or maybe the Queen Mother didn't want to be seen as complicit in such an abject failure. The press didn't make the connection about Camilla advising Charles until some time later, if I'm remembering the timing right. I don't know if that was because Diana talked about it to someone or if someone else let it slip. I'm pretty sure that Camilla's (and Dale Tryon's) vetting of Charles's girlfriends was known early on, if not even at the time of the engagement, but the notion that Camilla had basically arranged Charles's marriage is a bit more recent.

I have read that Camilla did check out all of Charles's girlfirends, for suitability. I seriously wonder if that is why some of the prospective candidates backed off.. Perhaps they were more aware of the possible relationship between Charles and Camilla. Anne Wallace, for example, walked out of an event because Charles left her on the sidelines, to dance the night away with Camilla.She ended the relationship by doing so.
 
BeatrixFan said:
As the agony aunt, Anna Raeburn often says, "We dont behave badly because someone else does, we behave badly because we want to and that's that". I for one totally agree with her.

[...]She wanted to get her own back but can we honestly say that that's acceptable because Charles was having an affair? Two wrongs don't make a right.

[...]We can be hypocrites but it's just acceptable. We don't think twice about it.

If hypocrisy is excepted than judging someone's character based on little no facts, vengence, and blaiming other people for one's actions should be just as acceptable IMO as they all are comtemptable. But if we can allow one, why not all? To say that judging Camilla and Charles is wrong but then being okay with hypocrisy seems unfair to me.

I have come to the realization that Camilla and Charles are great for each other and that they will "rule" England v. well. But I am also willing to admit I am one of those people who will never see them as wonderful and great they are now just because of the past. The past may be the past, but there was an old saying that happened right around the time of Paul Lawrence Dunbar and Langston Hughes and it was "lest we forget." It was something that was repeated over and over to me as a child and as an adult. I believe you can believe the past behind you, but it doesn't mean you should forget it. I think it's great if the people who matter the most are all smiles about the DOC and what a nice person she is, but for me, I don't see it that way. And luckily, my opinon doesn't really count.
 
Vita said:
If hypocrisy is excepted than judging someone's character based on little no facts, vengence, and blaiming other people for one's actions should be just as acceptable IMO as they all are comtemptable. But if we can allow one, why not all? To say that judging Camilla and Charles is wrong but then being okay with hypocrisy seems unfair to me.

I have come to the realization that Camilla and Charles are great for each other and that they will "rule" England v. well. But I am also willing to admit I am one of those people who will never see them as wonderful and great they are now just because of the past. The past may be the past, but there was an old saying that happened right around the time of Paul Lawrence Dunbar and Langston Hughes and it was "lest we forget." It was something that was repeated over and over to me as a child and as an adult. I believe you can believe the past behind you, but it doesn't mean you should forget it. I think it's great if the people who matter the most are all smiles about the DOC and what a nice person she is, but for me, I don't see it that way. And luckily, my opinon doesn't really count.

You are quite correct. It was a very hurtful past and the DOC certainly made her own way, not caring much about her husband, children or Diana. She may, personally, be a nice person, but she was also selfish. Yes, Diana did cheat, too, and that isn't right no matter what, but her marriage was a sham from the beginning, not "when it irritrievely broke down", as he reported. He never intended not to have a mistriss. He just thought he'd have a wife that would behave and ignore it. And, maybe she should have. Camilla would still be the mistress and Diana would be Pricess of Wales. Now, Diana is dead and their is a whole group just so willing to say "this adultress" is just the perfect queen material we need. Yes, he has always loved her and she does work well for him, but I like the previous "lest we forget".
 
I've never been a fan of 'lest we forget' because it always seemed an excuse to hold on to old hurts.

I doubt if the group that sees Camilla as Queen material think of her as just an adulteress, they are willing to see more of Camilla other than the fact that she had an extramarital relationship with Charles. Its not exactly seeing the whole person because nobody here can know the whole Camilla but they're willing to see that C&C have a happy marriage and that she fits in with the Royals and that is good for the monarchy.

The same goes for Charles. We can only guess but we can't know the whole Charles and we can't know that he never intended not to have a mistress. The story of a 'sham' marriage was brought out after Charles' first marriage broke down when hurts and accusations were flying.
 
I believe since the BRF, Harry and William, and other members of both sides appear to be falling in behind Charles and Camilla it is only a matter of time before people will accept them as they wish to be accpeted, as any other married royal couple.
 
Last edited:
Vita said:
"lest we forget."

"lest we forget" is a beautiful phrase which is used to remember soldiers who were killed in wars. It's to honour the men and women who gave their lives to defend their countries. In Australia at least, this phrase is used during the ANZAC day services which honour service personel and also on Remembrance Day which honours those military personel who lost their lives in various wars.

I'm horrified to even think that it could be used in a vindictive and hold a grudge forever way. I'm just shocked that this phrase is used to justify holding a grudge and not being able to move on.

Please don't desecrate the phrase "lest we forget" in such a way.
 
Charlotte1 said:
"lest we forget" is a beautiful phrase which is used to remember soldiers who were killed in wars. It's to honour the men and women who gave their lives to defend their countries. In Australia at least, this phrase is used during the ANZAC day services which honour service personel and also on Remembrance Day which honours those military personel who lost their lives in various wars.

I'm horrified to even think that it could be used in a vindictive and hold a grudge forever way. I'm just shocked that this phrase is used to justify holding a grudge and not being able to move on.

Please don't desecrate the phrase "lest we forget" in such a way.

New Zealand ditto
 
Perhaps we could move on now? This thread is beginning to get off topic.
 
My opinion now is "I was wrong all the time"
I changed my mind about the world, so I've changed my opinion about Camilla and Charles too ;]
Camilla seems a nice person to me now, she makes Charles happy(Charles words) and thats all what reallly matters, and the another things: duchess dutiesand bla bla bla, she does very well ;)
So there's not wrong with them now, the Diana's stories are past, ok Diana was a beautiful person with a beautiful soul and bla bla bla, I'm sure she's in heaven right now ;)
but we have to keep going with are lives, charles had the RIGHT to marry someone , why not? he's a person just like us, he loves too
Its HIS life
But all this is past too, now the're married and I'm happy they are happy ^^
 
Nad25 said:
What??? Camilla love the Prince of Wales in a motherly way?? What makes any one think like that!!!:confused: Shes only like two years older than him!

I think what you'll find in the two that they got a lot in common and they both share similar interests icluding their love for one another thats lasted for yearssss!

It's interesting to read how you see it as I spontaneously agree with it. Talk about Mileage.... :)
 
Charlotte said:
Please don't desecrate the phrase "lest we forget" in such a way.

"Lest we forget how fragile we are".... Sting - Fragile
 
I have just had 3 wonderful nites of watching the royals on TV.
Diana: Her Legacey ; Margaret: The Royal Rebel; and another on the Queen Mother.
After watching all 3, and of course , especially Diana, my feelings regarding the duchess have not changed but have only been reinforced.
I agree that charles and camilla are a much better "fit", and he is much happier, with her. However, I really do not care if he is happy or not, as a person. AND I will draw my own conclusions about their characters from what has been published and documented in film documentaries, and books.
Please remember I do not "hate" these two,simply see them differently from the majory of views on here. I am amazed that they are to be the future monarchs of the UK and the commonwealth countries, after all is said and done.
 
Kate Julie said:
However, I really do not care if he is happy or not, as a person.

Fair enough, but do you care about the success of the monarchy? If not, then it doesn't really matter whether Charles is happy or not. If you do, its interesting to think that a monarchy with a dissatisfied king will be strong enough to withstand the onslaughts that monarchies face these days. Or even, the son of a dissatisfied king who never saw either of his parents in a good marriage.
 
Kate Julie said:
However, I really do not care if he is happy or not,

I watched the programmes concerning the living royal family but, to each his or her own!
I care whether anyone is happy or not, that is called human decency, IMO.
 
This makes me think that no matter what kind of situation we are in, we must strive to survive, to live. Otherwise, onces you are dead, those you care(including your partners) will eventually move on, if not right away! The world will forget about you as time passes by and those who trully cared about you, might no longer have voices to defend you. Sure past is past and we all move on but if it is really true, then we have no reason to learn the history or classic. We have no reason to read books either, since the news is the only thing treated as important aspect of life.
If that were true, we should just push the reset botton like the computer-but then , we are not machines but human being with compassion and heart-and we will always remember the beautiful, nice, yet tragic late princess Diana.
 
Last edited:
julial said:
Otherwise, once you are dead, those you care (including your partners) will eventually move on, if not right away! The world will forget about you as time passes by and those who trully cared about you, might no longer have voices to defend you.

That is what is supposed to happen. After someone dies (even a partner) they are not forgotten but, remembered by their family. Even when it was the most loving relationship, after a time you move on. It is called life!
 
Frankly speaking i think charles and camilla are happy and may they also remain so.
 
Even ordinary people deserve their own happiness, how about Prince Charles? We should be not so cruel to Prince Charles and Camilla. After all they are no longer young people. I am sure, Diana would have found her own happiness if she were still alive. She would offer her best wishes to Charles and Camilla, why can't others follow suit? Love is the most hardest thing to understand in the world. At least finally Charles found a woman who is able to share his burden of his duty and his life. I really cannot stand his sadness and his solitude on his face and in his soul. I want a happy Prince Charles and I want a happy king .
 
ysbel said:
Fair enough, but do you care about the success of the monarchy? If not, then it doesn't really matter whether Charles is happy or not. If you do, its interesting to think that a monarchy with a dissatisfied king will be strong enough to withstand the onslaughts that monarchies face these days. Or even, the son of a dissatisfied king who never saw either of his parents in a good marriage.

I DO want to see the monarchy survive - of course charles has to be happy, to enable him to do his job correctly and properly. If it is camilla that helps him to be happy , sobeit...Doesn't mean one has to approve of the person.I am not talking about the position.
Merely of the person.:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom