Camilla and The Public

[Dman]

Yes, the children were the best. Look, they never had a marriage. He loved someone else. And, to his credit, he really did. Diana wanted more, to her credit, but it would never be available. Never was. And DMAN, if Diana were still alive, Charles would not have married Camilla, because his mother would have never sanctioned it. It will be interesting when he is king and they anoint Camilla, while her first husband is in the gallery. The Church's hypocrisy is quite evident on this one.

Okay, why do you think, if Diana were still alive and moved on in her life, The Queen wouldn't allow Charles to move on too?

I think The Queen made a rather smart move for the sake of the Monarchy. I think she's trying to leave a stable Monarchy behind. It's her job to take care of the "Firm" as much as she can and she did what she had to do. God knows how she really felt about it all but I understood her move.

The Queen and royal family efforts and that major PR campaign has carried Camilla this far and it has worked with the public.

 

[Mirabel]

Camilla had to find its place. Camilla will never be as popular as Diana was.

No, she won't, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

One problem Charles and Diana had was Diana's enormous popularity; after their divorce, she almost had what one reporter described as a rival monarchy.

Camilla supports Charles, she doesn't upstage him.

 

[muriel]

No, she won't, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.


Camilla supports Charles, she doesn't upstage him.

Very well said.

 

[Dman]

No, Camilla won't be as popular as Diana was but Camilla has become popular with a great deal of people though. Diana did her thing back in the day and I think people are allowing Camilla to do hers.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

From 1981 we Americans were fed a fairly tale - and we tend to see these things like this in black and white. The American press made a mint off that fairy tale (I'll be the editors of People Magazine draped the offices in black for one year after she died) I refuse to have conversations anymore with other Americans on the topic. The American press also made a mint off the idea of Camilla being the evil Queen to the fair, innocent Diana, and are still doing it. Even now, Yahoo news in its headlines posts the most bizarre stories about royals - one last week is Camilla is a drunk and the Queen is ordering Charles to divorce her - and I will tell you most in the U.S. will believe this nonsense. I'd like to see Camilla sue for defamation over that one, but I don't think it's in her nature.

I'm glad that the British have warmed to Camilla. Life goes on, and she does a good job, I think.

 

[Sunnystar]

Sadly, I suspect that GracieGiraffe and other Americans chiming in here are correct about the general opinion of Camilla in the US from those who aren't royal watchers. My former boss and I like to chat every few weeks or month and sometimes she teases me about how I like following royalty. However we sometimes discuss Camilla and Diana quite seriously. She's not a royal watcher by any stretch of the imagination but she is a very intelligent, perceptive woman and quite successful in our business. I respect her tremendously yet her opinion is that Camilla broke up the fairytale marriage and that Diana was the wronged party. She is very puzzled at why I like and appreciate Camilla. I admit, I really didn't have an opinion one way or the other regarding Camilla but the years I've spent on this forum, especially following the BRF, have caused me to become a fan. I doubt the same could be said of most Americans since we really did only hear Diana's spin on how the Wales' marriage fell apart.

 

[Ish]

It's not just the US, Canada can be like that too. My mother hates Charles and thinks he isn't able to be king, and my stepmother has informed me that she didn't like Camilla until her own marriage ended and had a different perspective on things.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

What is the name of that ridiculous American newspaper? Who writes the most unthinkable things, that The Queen is dying, and that Camilla is looking out for the throne etc. etc.

 

[Ish]

That would be The Globe. Their headlines are good for a laugh and little more.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

That would be The Globe. Their headlines are good for a laugh and little more.

Thank you!
I do not understand why people believe in that stuff.

 

[Ish]

Because they don't have an understanding of how the system works, buy into conspiracy theories, and don't actually have any media showing anything positive about Camilla over here.

As much as we rag on the DM, it does have an understanding of how the system works and fairly often shows both Charles and Camilla in neutral, if not positive, lights.

 

[Iluvbertie]

And there are other publications that pick up The Globe's fantasies and publish them as well - thus creating multiple 'sources' for the stories and adding 'credibility' to the stories and sadly there are many, many people who want to see some of these stories to be true due to their total hatred of Charles and Camilla.

 

[Skippyboo]

Ish - Canadians can hate? Isn't that against the law in Canada? Don't you have to like everyone and be super polite in Canada ?

The Globe is horrid- it's always some totally stupid, wrong royal headline in which the Queen is dying, Camilla is a angry drunk and Kate is pregnant while William is going to be named the next King like the Queen can choose.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Ish]

Ish - Canadians can hate? Isn't that against the law in Canada? Don't you have to like everyone and be super polite in Canada ?

On the contrary, Skippy! We Canadians are required by law to hate (at a minimum) Toronto and any and all rival hockey teams.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

If we had something like the globe here in the UK or in Norway, they had been shut down.

 

[MARG]

That would be The Globe. Their headlines are good for a laugh and little more.

I went and checked. What a hoot, but really, do any normal people believe those crazy stories?

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

I went and checked. What a hoot, but really, do any normal people believe those crazy stories?

Yes people do, but I do not know if they are normal. The Globe is not worth reading.

 

[Duchess of Durham]

I think one of the problems a lot of Americans have is that they don't think for themselves. They hear something from someone they consider reliable, or they do not investigate to the the real story. Or worse, they will think the opposite just to be contrarian. I see so many of my fellow countrymen follow those whom they trust. I live by the Russian proverb, "Trust, but verify."

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

What's with all the globe reading in hear. No reading The Globe....I don't know whT u should read but no Globe.
It really angers me when commentators, British btw, bring up Charles not becoming King. On another board it was brought up that Harry should be King instead of Charles and William and someone said that The Royal Family has become the X Factor.
I recently read an online article about how Camilla captured the publics heart, but I don't know if that was from a paper magazine or just a blog.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

I think one of the problems a lot of Americans have is that they don't think for themselves. They hear something from someone they consider reliable, or they do not investigate to the the real story. Or worse, they will think the opposite just to be contrarian. I see so many of my fellow countrymen follow those whom they trust. I live by the Russian proverb, "Trust, but verify."

People here in the U.S. want to believe in the fairy tale narrative - those who give a darn, about the fairy tale, that is. Nobody is really that interested in looking into the real story, kinda like the suspension of disbelief people engage in when watching certain action or fantasy movies, etc.

What really irks me is that I believe that most of these fairy tale opinions are driven purely by looks - Diana was "beautiful," Charles .. .not so much and Camilla, well the majority of American commentary is nothing short of misogyny at its worse (and on purely objective terms she was/is not as good looking as Diana, or as young, or as well-dressed etc). So the American public's view is shallowness at its most crass. I have often said that when you compare this to the Jennifer Aniston, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie saga - the American public gives Pitt and Jolie a pass because, well, obviously they're soul mates. Well, can't one argue that Charles and Camilla were always meant to be together? The difference in opinion of the majority of the public can only be based on one thing, IMO - looks. Now, I could give a fig about who wronged who in each of these trios - it really is shocking to me that the majority opinion is based upon looks and beauty. Naturally, there are exceptions to this blanket statement, but I'm talking about what I see as the prevailing American view based on public comments of the average person.

 

[MARG]

That's a pretty depressing evaluation but I have to agree because it even happens here. People who know nothing about the BRF still witter on about Poor Diana, Dastardly Charles and Conniving Camilla. They are all set pictures from back in the day when we were bombarded by news of the royal fracas. Those not so subtley "enhanced" photos of an ugly, haggard Camilla still linger as do the beautifully enhanced photos of Diana the saint. Come to think of it, perhaps that is why so many believe Camilla has had extensive cosmetic surgery (on the taxpayer of course) making her look so much younger and no longer haggard when all that has really happened is them untouched real photos of her.

Unfortunately, unlike most "news" where time tends to reveal certain truths, the CDC debacle survives intact against against all odds. Princess Diana was a fairytale Princess, the stuff of legends and Camilla is still the witch. What is worse though is that the media do nothing to correct that image. Charles and Camilla were well received here in NZ but you'd never know how well by the lack of international coverage.

 

[COUNTESS]

I, actually, think, the lack of international coverage is because they are not glamorous. I not saying this is correct, but unfortunately that is what the media cares about, because that is what sells. I think the lines are blurred today, about the saint and the witch. They are or were just people. All made mistakes. I guess when Camilla shows up they can see she didn't have cosmetic surgery on the taxpayer, as she looks older than she should and is as I said not glamorous. American media could care less about royals in general, so it is no surprise that, that trip wasn't covered here and that is because there is little interest here. I cannot speak for other nations.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

This is true. For instance there is no rational reason to cover Prince George more than his elders (I mean, he's cute and all and it's nice to see his first steps, but his elders are actually doing things that are worthwhile - in particular his grandfather - but on any given day I probably know more about George's activities than Charles' ). But George sells papers and Charles does not, even though Charles' contributions to the world are many. (We also know more about the Kardashians than Charles and Camilla, and that's pretty disturbing too).

You are right that Charles and Camilla are not "glamorous" and this is why they are not covered, or admired for their accomplishments.

 

[AfricanAUSSIE]

I agree with you. No coverage in Sydney either. We are busy with Thorny "coming out".

There is even less interest from my Mom. She hasn't moved on from their "mistakes". She is their generation and absolutely detests Camilla and Charles (I think she detests Camilla more . She goes into a ugly rant when she sees Camilla wearing any jewelry previously worn by Diana or even the Queen!

 

[Osipi]

I think members of the public (no matter where they live) that were around and being fed by the media during that awful time in Camilla's private life, will steadfastly refuse to change their opinions on her basically because they have not been presented with Camilla's side of the story.

Camilla didn't say a word back then and she's not uttered one word about her relationship with Charles before her marriage to him. She also, most certainly, has never once uttered a slur against Diana in public and if she's done so in private, its never become known. Yet people are warming up to Camilla. Why? I think its because they're being presented with actions that they can see. They're seeing a couple out and about that clearly are happy in each other's company. They're seeing a woman that doesn't mind (and probably even prefers) being in a supportive role and every now and then, a glimpse shines through of Camilla's down to earth nature and her "wicked" sense of humor.

I think if people really took a very good look at Camilla over the decades, what they would see in her is the attributes we would all look for in a best friend and confidant. One that would go through the bad times as well as the good times with one and offer comfort and solace when needed and tell you sometimes what one doesn't want to hear because that's what one needs to hear.

Its too bad that qualities such as this don't sell papers.

 

[Pranter]

It's not (or should not be to anyone) a surprise that some of the older folks (and younger ones too truth be known) do not accept Camilla due to the circumstances. Then there is the fact that she has a living husband (Andrew Parker-Bowles)..and no matter how 'flexible' some of the clergy have become and think it's all well and good for them to be remarried and bless the marriage.....it probably sticks in the craw of some of the more serious/devout members of the CoE/Anglicans or whatever they have splintered off into these days.

I personally don't know how the Queen and the CoE get around the marriage situation with Charles considering what he will be to the Church when King...unless it just really doesn't matter anymore and the CoE has more or less become a meeting club people drop by now and then.


LaRae

 

[nascarlucy]

It seems like the tabloid recycles negative news or the same story over and over again. I don't know how many times I've seen when checking out in line at the grocery store seeing something negative written about the royal family. Never positive. If it's isn't Charles and Camilla, it is Prince William or Kate.

Since Prince Charles had been married to Camilla, I've seen the same tabloid story over and over again (Queen tells Camilla to leave, advises Charles to divorces her or something to that effect). Then the next edition it will be someone else.

 

[COUNTESS]

Interesting. I never see them mentioned. To most of my countrymen he could have married a tree and wouldn't make a difference. No one cares.

 

[Ish]

You may just not be looking. Globe is a US tabloid and I frequently see Queen is dying and Camilla is trying to steal the throne-esque front pages on it.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

I was indeed shocked to read on the front cover that Kate is 90 pounds and pregnant with twins as I placed my bread and milk on the belt.