Camilla & Charles: What Is Your Opinion Now?

[Katemac63]

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.

You are correct of course. It will be the 40 and under crowd that really get behind them, also , I am sure of a few old faithfuls, IMO of course.

 

[Skydragon]

Sure past is past and we all move on
If that were true, we are not machines but human being with compassion and heart.

Are you suggesting that after the loss of a husband/wife/partner/ex partner, we should all go into some sort of depression for the rest of our lives and never deserve to be happy again

From what some on here write and appear to think about Charles and Camilla, compassion and heart is in very short supply.

 

[Katemac63]

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 .

You are quite right. Diana would have wished them well and moved on with her own life, except for the boys of course.. I think too , had Diana lived, and we saw her move on and into a more suitable life and happy, we , the Diana supporters, would have moved on as well. Diana's sudden end, has kept the charles and camilla issue very much alive, especially combined with the conspiracy theory.Had Diana had more years between the divorce and her death - more time - etc..
One thing I do agree with in the documentary, I watched, was the royals had learned something from Diana...They were much more warm and did more walkabouts then the norm..They opted for photo shoots from the media ( charles with Harry downunder on a trip after DIana).At least this is what the commentator suggested.

 

[ysbel]

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.

That makes sense. Thanks for explaining.

 

[Katemac63]

That makes sense. Thanks for explaining.

IF William had been a bit older and had more years of freedom under his belt, I would certainly have wished and wanted that he be made King. He would have less baggage IMO, - but I do understand and want him to have a life prior to taking on the huge responsibility of Kingship! I dare say, when charles comes to the throne, his will possibly not be a long reign.. IMO of course

 

[ysbel]

You are correct of course. It will be the 40 and under crowd that really get behind them, also , I am sure of a few old faithfuls, IMO of course.

Actually I think its their own age group that is really getting behind Charles and Camilla. This is the generation that lived through the turbulence of the 60s, the breakdown of marriages across the economic classes that started in the 70s, economic and political uncertainty in the 70s and 80s. They have a lot of shared experiences that bind them together.

Some have made mistakes and paid for it and others have pulled themselves up. Those that have survived despite the turmoils see each other as confirmation and affirmation of their own survival.

The under 40 crowd is more likely to identify with William and Harry. If they think positively of Charles and Camilla, its probably with exaperated recognition of traits of their own parents who are hopelessly old-fashioned but maybe OK for old folks.

 

[Skydragon]

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 accepted, as any other married royal couple.

Which of course is exactly what they are. A happily married couple who happen to be the future King and Queen Consort of the UK and Commonwealth Countries.

 

[Skydragon]

Actually I think its their own age group that is really getting behind Charles and Camilla. This is the generation that lived through the turbulence of the 60s, the breakdown of marriages across the economic classes that started in the 70s, economic and political uncertainty in the 70s and 80s. They have a lot of shared experiences that bind them together.

The under 40 crowd is more likely to identify with William and Harry. If they think positively of Charles and Camilla, its probably with exaperated recognition of traits of their own parents who are hopelessly old-fashioned but maybe OK for old folks.

Are you saying, err, some of us are classed as old folk! From the crowds we see at their events, it is people of all ages.

 

[Katemac63]

Actually I think its their own age group that is really getting behind Charles and Camilla. This is the generation that lived through the turbulence of the 60s, the breakdown of marriages across the economic classes that started in the 70s, economic and political uncertainty in the 70s and 80s. They have a lot of shared experiences that bind them together.

Some have made mistakes and paid for it and others have pulled themselves up. Those that have survived despite the turmoils see each other as confirmation and affirmation of their own survival.

The under 40 crowd is more likely to identify with William and Harry. If they think positively of Charles and Camilla, its probably with exaperated recognition of traits of their own parents who are hopelessly old-fashioned but maybe OK for old folks.

Iwas just comparing my own age and interest, to that of the Queen and Phillip... and Princess Margaret...

 

[love_cc]

well said, ysbel. The more difficulties people experience, the more they see Prince Charles and Camilla, they are probably willing to accept them as a couple and future king and queen consort at least princess consort.I don't want to see a grumpy old prince anyway. I want to see a happy Charles and Camilla. It was a miracle for them to have got married for so many obstales. They are lucky enough to get things back on the right track after so many years.

I thought about "whatever in love means". Then I thought Diana seemed to have a girlish crush on Prince Charles rather than being in love with a true Charles himself. It is painful to say, but Charles and Diana had made a horribly wrong mistake and I wished they had realised that earlier. Charles and Camilla are just soulmates whom should have not been separated. Soulmate is someone you cannot deny in your destiny.

 

[ysbel]

Are you saying, err, some of us are classed as old folk! From the crowds we see at their events, it is people of all ages.

Well you're right since I'm close to that age group myself and I refuse to consider myself old.

I do meet ex-pat Brits here all the time and what has struck me is the empathy that these Brits of their generation have for Charles and Camilla. Some of them have suffered losses, some by their own mistakes and there is an amazing sense of how blessed they feel to have survived and triumphed. They don't necessarily venerate C&C as Royals but see them as fellow humans who've made mistakes and have survived like themselves.

I admit I was quite surprised to see how strong that empathy ran in people.

 

[Vita]

"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.

I've just discovered Member's Corner and the Swedish Monarchy threads so I haven't been on much but I just wanted to say:

First, I apologize for offending any fellow members in this thread, but the term "lest we forget" does not and is not just for New Zealand and Australia. African-Americans have used this terms as well as a reminder of their past and not to forget it so the that history never repeats itself and that they remember to rise above the hurt, degredation, etc.

When I said lest we forget, I did not intend to use it in a degrading way. And I should have clearified in using it that I only meant sometimes forgetting leads us to repeat the same mistakes or keeps us from remembering the hurt we've felt or caused others. To me and how I was raised "lest we forget" is not about trying to hold on to the past, but it's about holding on the lessons that you learn from whatever trial and tribulation that you've been through.

I will never forget the story of Camilla, Charles, and Diana simply because those lessons taught me how to act and not to act in my own relationships. I believe everyone deserves happiness (even if I may question how they obtain it) but I do not believe that Charles or Camilla have gotten away scott free. They've all suffered pain for their actions. In my mind, I can easily separate past deeds or a bit of their character from the fact that they are going, together, do great things for Britian, but in my heart I feel opposite. I think I've stated that enough so I won't be repeating myself again so that this thread can get back to what it's all about.

I stand by my statements but apologize, again, for offending people. However those words and phrase do no belong to just one group of people and it means something different to everyone. I am sorry if this is counted as off topic. If you must delete it, then feel free by all means. I just wanted to make a formal apology and statement.

Thank you,
Vita

 

[Katemac63]

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.

If you think that Diana was not a reliable source, what about the housekeeper, the butler and Diana's security person? Were they all a bad source and non reliable when they said about camilla coming in and running the household once Diana was safely back in London? In several books including their>\!

 

[love_cc]

If you think that Diana was not a reliable source, what about the housekeeper, the butler and Diana's security person? Were they all a bad source and non reliable when they said about camilla coming in and running the household once Diana was safely back in London? In several books including their>\!

These sources are still regarded as the evidence from Diana's side. I am not saying all inforamtion is false but you cannot believe every allegation from those sources though. The housekeeper, the bulter ,bodyguard and Diana's clerks all had the intentions to make money first rather than revealing the truth. Charels's sources are likely to be former and current courtiers, relatives, family friends, etc. There are just Charles's side, Diana's side and the truth. Just let youself to make judgment.

 

[Skydragon]

If you think that Diana was not a reliable source, what about the housekeeper, the butler and Diana's security person? Were they all a bad source and non reliable

Basically, yes. How anyone can still believe anything Burrel says is beyond me. Having watched him being 'set up' by Ant and Dec and how he behaved towards a pretend sheik, (he was almost prostrating himself) I realised all the stuff he came out with regarding what he said to any of the royals, couldn't possibly be true.

Lets be halfway honest here, if any of them had written the truth about what went on (or didn't) and they had stuck to the boring, provable facts, would they have sold half the books, would you have purchased a book that said it was all in Diana's imagination - probably not!

 

[MARG]

IF William had been a bit older and had more years of freedom under his belt, I would certainly have wished and wanted that he be made King. He would have less baggage.....

You are right. William does have less baggage, thats because he has until fairly recently, lived a relatively sheltered life. That is what baggage is, life lessons learned the hard way, or as someone more philosophical said "experience is the name we give our mistakes". William has yet to 'live' to make them!

William has yet to become his own man. In many tabloids, reputable newspapers, television news/documentaries, forums and postings he is still referred to as 'Diana's child' or one of 'her boys (literally)'. Until such time as he is defined as 'Prince William', a man in his own right, with his own life and his own opinions he will forever remain as this split personallity, William the poster boy / William the child. William the cypher.

Charles is next in line to the throne. He's worked for it. He's earned it. And done nothing to make himself ineligable. William, in turn, will be ready when his time comes, not his father's,

 

[ysbel]

I don't discount all of what Burrell said, but he's been known to exaggerate whether from Diana's imagination or more likely, just making himself out to be more important than he was.

 

[northernchoir]

I'm making my first post and how nice to be able to say "Best wishes for Camilla!."

I have always been sorry for the circumstances that prevented Charles and Camilla from being a "couple" from the beginning, but fate has a heavy hand. When I learned that she was his true love, I knew that there was much going on that would never be known by the public. I was sympathetic towards Camilla (remember the boors who actually threw things at her in a food market?) because I could imagine what she was going through, all for being in love.

When I had a good look at Camilla, I could see that she had a woman's face and a woman's figure and a woman's eyes. Sorry, but Diana's eyes were vacant, her body was athletic, and she was (by all accounts) extremely self-centered. Camilla's eyes are "deep" with passion, understanding, faith, and humour. She seems to be much like my own friends. Hard-working, intelligent, family-oriented, good-hearted, generous, and good-humoured.

She is as lovely as I could ever have hoped her to be now that she is free to be completely open with her adoration and affection for Charles. Yes, she now is able to spend more on her wardrobe, and he is, no doubt, proud of her. But, I'm sure she is just as loved in her sweats or riding gear.

Also, the Duchess is surrounded by quality people who have been her friends for years. Diana couldn't seem to make a friend or keep one. When she died, she wasn't on speaking terms with any of her family, and didn't have a single female friend of her own age or class. That is very instructive. The Duchess knows that to have a friend, you have to be a friend, and hers are lifelong. Also, Camilla loves animals and is surrounded by them. Diana was afraid of horses and had no need for dogs. That is also very instructive.

Incidentally, I want to tell our New Zealand friends that I am a history major and also follow popular culture. Kipling's phrase "Lest We Forget" was first popularly applied to the ANZAC heroes (dead or alive) from the Battle for Gallipoli. It was later extended to include all military heroes from WWI, and was made part of Poppy Day or Armistice Day. It was extended again to include WWII, specifically the heroes of the Battle of Britain, Pearl Harbor, the Battles of Midway, Guadalcanal, Iwa Jima, Monte Cassino, the Bataan Death March, the Battle of the Bulge, and all military battles including D-Day, V-E Day and V-J Day. "Lest We Forget" is a reference to key battles, defeats, and victories suffered by the military members of the Allies who fought those who would attempt to mount a World War against free and democratic people of the world. That term has nothing to do with Langston Huges (who was only 13 years old at the time of Gallipoli, and who later became a communist, which was the very opposite of "Lest We Forget"), or Paul Dunbar (who had been dead for 9 years at the time of Gallipoli).

Yes, any group can appropriate any words, but "Lest We Forget" forever identifies the military heroes of democratic nations, who gave their all, so that civilians may be free to pursue their own particular interests.

[I hope I didn't write too much. I'll slow down, but I had so much to say after reading this entire thread.]

 

[Warren]

I'm making my first post and how nice to be able to say "Best wishes for Camilla!" ...(hope I didn't write too much.)

Welcome to the Forums northernchoir.
You didn't "write too much": post length is never an issue when the content has substance.
Thank you clarifying the origin and application of "Lest We Forget" (and for remembering Gallipoli, which has great significance in Australia and New Zealand).

 

[Skydragon]

I'm making my first post and how nice to be able to say "Best wishes for Camilla!."
Yes, any group can appropriate any words, but "Lest We Forget" forever identifies the military heroes of democratic nations, who gave their all, so that civilians may be free to pursue their own particular interests.

Hi northernchoir, Welcome to the forums and with such a lovely informative post. Thank you from me as well for clarifying the origins of 'Lest we forget'.

 

[Avalon]

I'm making my first post and how nice to be able to say "Best wishes for Camilla!."

Welcome to the forum and a wonderful first post (with which I couldn't agree more).

 

[Katemac63]

Hi Northernchoir

You've made just the correct comments, - people are going to love having you aboard, for sure.

My opinion has not changed about the Duchess! Some people believe that the "past is the past"...so therefore we should all forget, the character that Camilla showed in the 80's.
I don't believe the "past is the past". In my eyes the past intertwines with the present and future - the "past" is always there..

Your opinion of Diana, is yours ( although shared by several on this forum - BUT not all), and thankfully this forum allows us all to express our views and opinions without bias.

Regards, Kate

 

[ysbel]

"...so therefore we should all forget, the character that Camilla showed in the 80's.

Camilla didn't show any character to the public in the 80s because she was out of the public eye.

If you personally met her during that time, you can speak with some authority on her character at the time but I don't think you have met her. Anything the rest of us know about her character in the 80s was given to us by others.

This is the first time many have seen her in public and we can finally form opinions about her ourselves. After having seen her, some people are starting to doubt the truthfulness of many of the negative things reported about her in the 80s.

That's not burying the past but its re-evaluating the past based on what we know now and finally being able to see her for ourselves.

 

[Katemac63]

Camilla didn't show any character to the public in the 80s because she was out of the public eye.

If you personally met her during that time, you can speak with some authority on her character at the time but I don't think you have met her. Anything the rest of us know about her character in the 80s was given to us by others.

This is the first time many have seen her in public and we can finally form opinions about her ourselves. After having seen her, some people are starting to doubt the truthfulness of many of the negative things reported about her in the 80s.

That's not burying the past but its re-evaluating the past based on what we know now and finally being able to see her for ourselves.

We will just agree to disagree on our view. Except , there are two photos of camilla befriending the future bride of charles and those coupled with what did emerge as truth , tells me and others not to doubt the truthfulness of the negative things reported about her, including her giving weekly reports to the newspaper editor about the marriage of DIana and charles.The editor told us that fact himself. Of course , one may call him a liar if they wish..even if the statement did come out of his mouth...Is re-evaluating the past, changing the course to make more acceptable for present?

 

[Warren]

.. including her [Camilla] giving daily reports to the newspaper editor about the marriage of DIana and charles.The editor told us that fact himself. Of course , one may call him a liar if they wish..even if the statement did come out of his mouth...

Haven't come across this one before: Camilla "gave daily reports to a newspaper editor about the marriage of Diana and Charles." How, when, who, source?

 

[Skydragon]

Except , there are two photos of camilla befriending the future bride of charles

Gosh, what a terrible woman she must be, trying to befriend and welcome another woman into the 'circle' of her future husbands friends! My friends and I must be terrible as well, as we have always done that and considered it to be the right thing to do!

 

[Katemac63]

Gosh, what a terrible woman she must be, trying to befriend and welcome another woman into the 'circle' of her future husbands friends! My friends and I must be terrible as well, as we have always done that and considered it to be the right thing to do!

I think we've had this dance, have we not?? - I've also welcomed people into my circle, but I don't have one eye on their husband....or to be more correct for the timeframe, husband to be..(IMO of course)

 

[Skydragon]

I think we've had this dance, have we not?? - I've also welcomed people into my circle, but I don't have one eye on their husband....or to be more correct for the timeframe, husband to be..(IMO of course)

Yes we have and you gave no evidence then regarding who told you Camilla's intentions.

You are forgetting Camilla and Charles were friends and it is natural to want to make every effort to make his wife feel welcome. Do we hear the same thing about the welcome any of his other friends gave her, male or female, did they also have their eye on the husband to be?

I suppose there is no accounting for the way some people would rather see a bad side to IMO a genuine attempt at friendship.

Perhaps I should start to suggest all my husbands friends only befriended me to get closer to him (he should be so lucky).

 

[ysbel]

People's opinions are generally more reliable when they stick to what was actually was observed rather than making assumptions about what other people think or feel.

Yes Camilla was friends with Charles at the time of his marriage as were Lady Tryon, Lady Jane Wellesley, etc. That's all we know because no one from that circle has said anything publicly. Camilla's friendship with Charles at the start of his marriage is not firm evidence that she had designs on Charles from the beginning because if that's all the evidence we need, its also a fair assumption that the Charles' other girlfriends must have had designs on him too. I can't believe that Charles was such a popular ladykiller.

Charles was well known for keeping friendships with former girlfriends before Diana came into the picture.

This is what I meant by interpretating the same facts differently. The only two observable actions of Camilla during the 80s are her friendship with Charles at the start of the marriage and evidence of the affair that came long after the marriage started. The interpretation that Camilla were planning the affair from the start is only one of many possible interpretations. Its equally plausible that they were both having trouble in their marriages and turned to each other for support as friends which later became something more serious. I'm sure there are many other interpretations of what happened but they all fall short in having reliable information to support them.

This is why many people are basing their opinions of Camilla on what they see now because she's at least giving us something to go on.

 

[Katemac63]

Haven't come across this one before: Camilla "gave daily reports to a newspaper editor about the marriage of Diana and Charles." How, when, who, source?

Look up "John-Paul Flintoff: On the trail of Kelvin Mackenzie - Pharagraph #25.

www.etoile.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=24453&sid=24202caba7711341855bda00420B5238-81k

I am still looking for the link that say, "camilla was on the phone once a week to Stuart Higgins from the early 80's to the seperation and divorce of charles and DIana..
WHen I find that one I'll give you the link as well

Regards
Kate