Charles & Camilla: How has your opinion changed since the wedding?

[COUNTESS]

First of all, the "whatever love means" quote, basically showed he was getting married, love had nothing to do with it. Diana as I said was a fool. She fooled herself into thinking she could change him. Silly girl. Yes, their marriage fell apart, we shall say for whatever reasons and Camilla's bed was open immediately. By the way, none of us will ever really know the truth. The fact that she was, also, married, was insignificant. Charles had an open road right to Camilla. That they love each other is not the question. They have through thick and thin. That they are happy now is nice. But nothing has changed. Charles enetered into a marriage without loving his wife. Yes, Diana entered the marriage wanting to be POW. So, in a way each got what they deserved. In the end, we have two adulterers who have found happiness. So, the question, has my opinion changed. No. They were always selfish and now he has gotten his way, I am never sure Camilla wanted this part.

 

[wbenson]

I disagree with the common interpretation of the "whatever 'in love' means" quote. Charles isn't exactly Mr. Direct. I think he was trying to be profound but it didn't go over the way he wanted.

 

[tinkerbell1948]

Refusing to do his job? Really? I must have missed that (obviously) very public ultimatum.

This is from his abdication speech

But you must believe me when I tell you that I have found it impossible to carry the heavy burden of responsibility and to discharge my duties as King as I would wish to do without the help and support of the woman I love.


Edward VIII Speech - Abdicating the Throne

 

[Elspeth]

Well Ysbel it still is a very odd comment to make. If one were to say "I love you" and the other person responded back saying "Whatever love means"
that would be such an odd thing to say.
Of course that doesen't mean he was creeping (sleeping) around with Camilla.

Well, yes, but it wasn't exactly like that. The two of them were sitting talking to a reporter, and members of the royal family aren't used to being expected to talk about their feelings in public.

It's sort of funny to read, from some of the people in this and other threads, how this response of Charles's clearly means he wasn't in love with Diana but had another woman stashed away somewhere. It isn't something that seemed so dead obvious at the time, or there'd have been newspaper reports all over the place the next day.

 

[COUNTESS]

Oh, no, everyone wanted this wedding. Maybe, not Charles deep down, but everyone, including Diana wanted to see this thing go forward. Otherwise, tea towels or not she would have bolted. She had this benighted idea she could change him. And, he, I believe, really had not thought about love and Diana or whatever loves means. He was doing his duty. That he knew he had to do. Too bad for all. I don't even know if he loved Camilla, at that time. From the Camillagate tapes, he says, "your greatest achievement is to love me". So, to Charles' mind loving him is a great achievement. In those tapes, he also tells Camilla he loves her, he does't say, 'whatever that means".

 

[Skydragon]

Right, Diana, invented Camilla. HEAVILY SNIPPED

Diana blamed someone else all of her life, so yes Diana invented Camilla's early involvement in her marriage.

From the Camillagate tapes, he says, "your greatest achievement is to love me". So, to Charles' mind loving him is a great achievement. In those tapes, he also tells Camilla he loves her, he does't say, 'whatever that means

You have taken the phrase out of context and out of meaning. They were two people, very much in love, bantering and reassuring one another.

Camilla: I do love you and I'm so proud of you. Charles: Oh, I'm so proud of you Camilla: Don't be so silly, I've never achieved anything. Charles: Yes you have. Camilla: No I haven't. Charles: Your great achievement is to love me. Camilla: Oh, darling. Easier than falling off a chair. Charles: You suffer all these indignities and tortures and calumnies Camiila: Oh, darling, don't be so silly. I'd suffer anything for you. That's love. It's the strength of love

Whatever love is was the memorable phrase, a typical, IMO, wriggle around talking of such matters to strangers, especially the press.

 

[TheTruth]

Diana blamed someone else all of her life, so yes Diana invented Camilla's early involvement in her marriage. .

Yes, Diana extrapolated Camilla's role in the early stage of the marriage.
I agree that she went to far by maintaining this accusation on Camilla while it was just an impression and it was unfair to blame Camilla when she didn't have the proof of this affair. But Charles and Camilla had a very strong relationship and Diana felt excluded when they were together, like she couldn't equal her in the heart of Charles. Thanks jealousy ...

 

[Amelia]

Charles: You suffer all these indignities and tortures and calumnies Camiila: Oh, darling, don't be so silly. I'd suffer anything for you. That's love. It's the strength of love

I guess I’m more of a romantic than I thought because these words are just . I never realised how in love these two were for all those years. I’m glad that they got their chance at a happy ever after.

 

[ysbel]

Well if I may be permitted to bring the thread back to what your opinion of Charles now is; I think COUNTESS's early very confident observation is very important.

Charles had a built in lover when he married Diana and he continued that, wanting to live a charade.

People can have several reasons for their opinion of Charles; however, I think Diana and what she presented are the main source material that most people draw upon to make up their minds about Charles. Diana was so successful in convincing the world to see her picture of Charles that people quote her without even knowing that they are quoting her.

Yesterday I went to lunch with a co-worker who is interested in British culture and when I mentioned that I followed British royalty and was following a conversation on Charles and Diana she said immediately, well he was already seeing his second wife when he married Diana didn't he? This is from a woman that does not particularly care for royalty and doesn't follow the British Royal Family at all - BUT SHE KNOWS THE STORY ABOUT CHARLES TAKING CAMILLA INTO HIS MARRIAGE BED WITH HIM

That is the pervasiveness of Diana's power of persuasion and if she lied, then it is very destructive for people's opinions of Charles and Camilla.

We talked a little bit more and I explained the situation of the marriage and she said but of course he loved her (Camilla) he didn't just pick out a hot young beauty as his mistress, he must have really loved her. Some people like my grandmother would never sanction divorce no matter what but most people at least understand it and understand an affair if the couple was in a loveless marriage and one of the partners found someone they really loved. Even people that say its not right to have an affair at least have sympathy for people trapped in a loveless marriage and understand why someone would have an affair with someone else they found that they loved. The history of Western romantic literature is based on based on loveless marriages and people finding their true love but not able to realize their true love. Our culture is set up to be very sympathetic to star-crossed lovers.

So if the story of Charles and Camilla was of two star-crossed lovers, and protagonists that many people would find sympathy with then what would make people lose their sympathy and understanding for Charles?

The story planted into the people's minds that Charles had his mistress with him when he went into his marriage bed. Anyone can understand star-crossed lovers stealing a bit of happiness but no one is going to have sympathy for a man who knowingly married a woman when he had no intention of loving her or making her first in his heart because his heart already belonged to another.

As I said, if Diana lied about this, this lie was probably the most destructive thing she could do to Charles and to the monarchy and that single lie is affecting people's opinions of Charles and Camilla today without them even realizing.

As Elspeth said, nobody jumped to the conclusion that 'Whatever love means' meant that Charles was sleeping with Camilla until Diana made her accusation. So people were not judging Charles' actual words and the situation surrounding them as they saw it; they were judging the words as they heard that Diana later interpreted it. Yes Charles said those words, but the source of the negative interpretation of those words comes from Diana.

 

[Roslyn]

As I said, if Diana lied about this, this lie was probably the most destructive thing she could do to Charles and to the monarchy and that single lie is affecting people's opinions of Charles and Camilla today without them even realizing.

As Elspeth said, nobody jumped to the conclusion that 'Whatever love means' meant that Charles was sleeping with Camilla until Diana made her accusation. So people were not judging Charles' actual words and the situation surrounding them as they saw it; they were judging the words as they heard that Diana later interpreted it. Yes Charles said those words, but the source of the negative interpretation of those words comes from Diana.

I have been following HM and her children all my life; they have been part of my life. They received a great deal of media coverage when I was a child and we read a lot about Charles when he was out here attending Timbertop. In a way we adopted him. The Queen and Charles seemed to visit here fairly regularly and got lots of coverage and I recall seeing the news report the day he was kissed by a local girl at Bondi Beach in Sydney. So I felt I knew Charles long before Diana came on the scene and she was just a part of his life, not the part of his life that made him interesting. I think that those of us who knew Charles Before Diana are likely to have a very different perspective of the C-D-C issue than those who became interested in him and the RF because of Diana.

I was aware that Charles had lots of women friends, including ex-girlfriends, and I saw that as a plus, because I like men who consider women as friend material not just sex-objects, and such men are much more interesting to talk to than the other type though they are thin on the ground in this country. I had always thought of Charles as an honest person - painfully so, in fact - and if he was going to marry someone, I believed he was going to give it a good shot, and that he must love the girl, though she didn't seem his type. I did think "whatever love/in love means" was odd, but put it down both to Charles overthinking things and also not being comfortable talking about such a personal subject in public. However at the time it never occurred to me that he would take any of his women friends into his marriage. Charles never struck me as a devious type, and this was an opinion I had formed before I ever heard the name Diana Spencer.

Did Diana intentionally lie about the issue? I don't know. It wouldn't surprise me if she had, because we know she was quite capable of lying, but she might have have convinced herself it was true. If she did consciously lie about it, I agree it was probably the most destructive thing she could have done to Charles, for the reasons you state. Far more damaging, I think, than the comments about him not being fit to be king because that is a fairly abstract notion whereas people can more easily relate on an emotional level to the idea of an older man cruelly deceiving his beautiful young bride.

 

[rmay286]

Some people like my grandmother would never sanction divorce no matter what but most people at least understand it and understand an affair if the couple was in a loveless marriage and one of the partners found someone they really loved. Even people that say its not right to have an affair at least have sympathy for people trapped in a loveless marriage and understand why someone would have an affair with someone else they found that they loved. The history of Western romantic literature is based on based on loveless marriages and people finding their true love but not able to realize their true love. Our culture is set up to be very sympathetic to star-crossed lovers.

So if the story of Charles and Camilla was of two star-crossed lovers, and protagonists that many people would find sympathy with then what would make people lose their sympathy and understanding for Charles?

The story planted into the people's minds that Charles had his mistress with him when he went into his marriage bed. Anyone can understand star-crossed lovers stealing a bit of happiness but no one is going to have sympathy for a man who knowingly married a woman when he had no intention of loving her or making her first in his heart because his heart already belonged to another.

As I said, if Diana lied about this, this lie was probably the most destructive thing she could do to Charles and to the monarchy and that single lie is affecting people's opinions of Charles and Camilla today without them even realizing.

I have to say, I think I am just not one of those people who is sympathetic to stories of star-crossed lovers, at least not in the way the story played out between Charles and Camilla. I haven't read a lot of Charles/Diana biographies except perusing several a few years ago, but I guess in the end it doesn't really matter to me when Charles started his affair with Camilla: it was still an affair. Yes, I'dthink it was worse if Charles really had never intended to be faithful to Diana from the start, but I'm not sure I've ever been convinced of that. Actually several years ago I spent quite a lot of time defending Charles and his relationship with Camilla on another royalty forum which was very pro-Diana. I was never a Diana fan.

But now I think it's interesting how public opinion, which once seemed to be vastly pro-Diana and anti-Charles and Camilla, now seems quite split. Some people still loathe Camilla (and Charles) for being selfish monsters who "destroyed Diana's life", while other people have come around to the opinion that Charles and Camilla are soulmates with a deeply romantic love story. I think at one time I kind of wanted to take a "side" and since I never felt any admiration for Diana, I think I almost wanted to support Charles and Camilla.

But over time I've realized I can't because I've simply never seen anything in Charles and Camilla's relationship to admire. I don't dislike either of them, I just don't see the romance. I can see they're in love and I'm glad Charles is finally happily married. But that whole "Camillagate" phone conversation never seemed romantic to me. It sounded like two people who were so consumed with passion for each other, that being together came before everyone else and even at the expense of every one else in their lives. I don't know. I guess I would have felt it romantic if their love for each other would have really developed their characters, gave them the courage to give up the things they valued most. Since they valued each other so much I might have found it romantic if Charles and Camilla had truly given up each other (at least their sexual relationship) until divorce from their respective spouses and public opinion allowed them to have a truly legitimate relationship. I think of someone who seems truly discreet and dignified and supportive of her husband like the Duchess of Gloucester and then I think of Camilla who's sometimes also praised as having those qualities, and I can't help but admire Camilla less because I know she's also someone who for several years sneaked around and hid her relationship with a married man while she herself was married. Not admiring Camilla is often attributed to liking Diana...for me both women are totally different people with totally different attributes and life stories; I don't hate either but I don't feel any particular admiration for either.

 

[tinkerbell1948]

I agree Roslyn. I am 11 months older than Charles so I've been following the Royal Family as it were since I was a child. The Movietone News at the cinema when Queen Elizabeth 2nd was crowned is printed indelibly on my mind.

And of course when Charles came out here to Timbertops I remember so clearly too. I later on read somewhere (wish I could remember) where he said those 6 months here in Australia were some of the happiest days of his life

I believe he went into marriage with Diana in good faith. I don't believe Camilla was an issue then.He was under enormous pressure to marry a girl "without a past" and a virgin to boot.

I remember the newspapers saying (although I know you take what is printed with a huge dash of salt) at the time that Prince Phillip told him to either marry the girl or break it off

I remember when Andrew got married there were twitterings that Sarah wasn't exactly "suitable" having lived with racing driver Paddy McNally.

Thank God those rigid times have gone !!!!!!!!!

The Panorama interview opened my eyes as to how manipulative Diana could be, the black dress, the black eyeliner looking very much the wronged woman the garnering for public sympathy ( 3 in the marriage bed etc)

The sad matter of the fact is Charles and Diana should never have married and Charles and Camilla should have way back when

They hadn't married when my Mum died in 2003 but they were a "couple" and Mum bless her heart said "You'll never break those 2 up, not after 30 years" (not counting of course the early years of Diana and Charles marriage when I believe he WAS faithful to Diana)

 

[rmay286]

I had always thought of Charles as an honest person - painfully so, in fact - and if he was going to marry someone, I believed he was going to give it a good shot, and that he must love the girl, though she didn't seem his type. I did think "whatever love/in love means" was odd, but put it down both to Charles overthinking things and also not being comfortable talking about such a personal subject in public. However at the time it never occurred to me that he would take any of his women friends into his marriage. Charles never struck me as a devious type, and this was an opinion I had formed before I ever heard the name Diana Spencer.

Did Diana intentionally lie about the issue? I don't know. It wouldn't surprise me if she had, because we know she was quite capable of lying, but she might have have convinced herself it was true. If she did consciously lie about it, I agree it was probably the most destructive thing she could have done to Charles, for the reasons you state. Far more damaging, I think, than the comments about him not being fit to be king because that is a fairly abstract notion whereas people can more easily relate on an emotional level to the idea of an older man cruelly deceiving his beautiful young bride.

I've never thought Charles was fundamentally a dishonest person or a hurtful one either, so regardless of what his feelings for Camilla were at the time of his marriage to Diana, I think it's kind of ridiculous that some people think he just callously married a young girl who he didn't really care about, other than as a means to keep up appearances and breed heirs.

That being said I'd dispute the idea that Charles' "whatever love means" was a totally innocent comment which revealed nothing about his subconscious. It didn't mean he loved Camilla, but if you're deeply in love with someone even if you're reticent about your feelings, is the first thing that comes out of your mouth going to be "whatever love means"? Somehow I can't imagine Charles ever saying quite the same words if asked whether he was in love with Camilla.

Will we ever really know the truth about when Charles started his relationship with Camilla? Only the two of them know. I wouldn't put it past Diana to lie about it (or even believe her own version of events), and yes, if it was a lie it was a pretty destructive one...although it doesn't make that much difference to me because in any case, it's clear Charles and Camilla did have an affair a few years into his marriage.

 

[ysbel]

Charles' words to Camilla were in private and I'm sure he never meant for outsiders to hear them.

Men in my family would turn beet red and mumble inanities if you asked them in front of a bunch of people if they loved their wives. And they do love their wives.

Actually the love conversations between Charles and Camilla weren't the only ones leaked to the press. There were a couple of phone conversations between Charles and Diana when one of them was in Australia during the engagement and there was a lot of flirting and banter. At the time it was seen as quite scandalous because one of them was somewhat uncomplimentary about an Australian politician and Charles was apparently in the running to become Governor General of Australia.

I can understand though your distaste for the sneaking around element that was such a part of that marriage. If it wasn't Charles sneaking around with Camilla, it was Diana humped in cars giving exclusives to Richard Kay and telling him to quote her as an unnamed friend and hiding with the BBC team to make the Panorama interview. There was far too much sneaking around in that marriage to my taste and it made the whole thing look incredibly sleazy. That's why I was glad it was over.

I wasn't that impressed with Charles and Camilla's taped phone conversation either. I know it was private but it was undignified.

But I tend to judge people on what I can deduce their permanent character is and from what I can deduce Charles is basically like you said, a painfully honest person and someone who is not a fundamentally hurtful person either despite his affair with Camilla and I place a great deal of importance on both of those characteristics.

Now if Camilla and Charles undertook some devious activity now that was hurtful to someone else I would deduce that their character is fundamentally flawed in this way and my opinion would change of them.

 

[Russophile]

Well my take on the "Your greatest achievement is to love me." tells me that Charles knows he's flawed and it is indeed, a great achievement to love somebody anyway. And they type of love Camilla has for Charles, well, a lot of people in this world will never experience anything like that. They will "settle" as Charles did with Diana, once upon a time. . . .

 

[Skydragon]

I have always thought how incredible brave Camilla was/is to love Charles and want to be part of the 'living under a microscope' life he has always led, so I can understand what he meant.
Many 100's of years ago, when married to my first husband, I honestly cannot remember him speaking of 'such things', as love in public, goodness, it was frowned upon to hold hands where others could see you! The latest Mr S, replies to a 'love you' (where others might hear) with a mmm.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Sorry, Ysbel, but his sin of " not loving Diana", is not such a big sin? Actually, I hate the word sin. Let's use the word decency. Charles had a built in lover when he married Diana and he continued that, wanting to live a charade. When you marry someone, you best "love" that someone at that moment. "Whatever love means"" That statement was quite telling.

The whole discussion of the Diana- Camilla-Charles- triangle always boils down to the fact that either you believe Diana telling about Camilla or not. The sad truth is that we don't have undisputable facts about what really happened between those three during the first years of Charles' and Diana's marriage.

All other argumentation, the question of decency etc. stems from this basic fact that is simply not known as both Charles and Diana claimed different facts to be true.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Well Ysbel it still is a very odd comment to make. If one were to say "I love you" and the other person responded back saying "Whatever love means"
that would be such an odd thing to say.
Of course that doesen't mean he was creeping (sleeping) around with Camilla.

Both the Morton and the Dimbleby-book state that already on the announcement of the engagement Charles and Diana had doubts if theirs was a marriage arranged in heaven. The both were not convinced that what they shared was really the form of lasting and enduring love felt by both of them. So on commenting to the ready "Of course" of the bride replying on the press' question if it was a love match one can understand that a man interested in philosophical thinking may answer rather philosophical: "Whatever love means"...

 

[TheTruth]

Both the Morton and the Dimbleby-book state that already on the announcement of the engagement Charles and Diana had doubts if theirs was a marriage arranged in heaven. The both were not convinced that what they shared was really the form of lasting and enduring love felt by both of them. So on commenting to the ready "Of course" of the bride replying on the press' question if it was a love match one can understand that a man interested in philosophical thinking may answer rather philosophical: "Whatever love means"...

I agree, it's sounded more like a reflexion on what kind of love was theirs. IMO, there was some love in the first years and during the wedding. And at one point, I don't think he even thought about Camilla or other women. If he hadn't married Diana, I highly doubt he would have married Camilla in the end. He would have found another woman, perhaps more of his type and still be married to her today. I'll never see Charles and Camilla like two soulmate, as if it was already written that they would be together eventually.

 

[milla Ca]

I agree, it's sounded more like a reflexion on what kind of love was theirs. IMO, there was some love in the first years and during the wedding. And at one point, I don't think he even thought about Camilla or other women. If he hadn't married Diana, I highly doubt he would have married Camilla in the end. He would have found another woman, perhaps more of his type and still be married to her today. I'll never see Charles and Camilla like two soulmate, as if it was already written that they would be together eventually.

Sorry Kelly, but what you wrote are only speculations without any facts.

All these threads end in an enduring Diana-Charles-Camilla discussion.
And because we all don´t know the truth biggrin we try to built our own pictures.
It´s okay, but than we shouldn´t forget that we most of the time talk about (our) fiction and not about reality.

I can understand that maybe for Diana supporters it´s important to reflect again and again the past and the time of her marriage with Charles.

For me this topic is more and more boring because it doesn´t bring any news or any new reliable source.

What i see ( i hope in reality) is a Prince of Wales happily married with a woman who gives him the suport he needs to do such a great job!

 

[ysbel]

I can understand that maybe for Diana supporters it´s important to reflect again and again the past and the time of her marriage with Charles.

For me this topic is more and more boring because it doesn´t bring any news or any new reliable source.

No, its me that brought this latest topic up because of some comments I got about Charles from people that hardly follow royalty and I am not a Diana follower.

When friends and colleagues first hear I am interested into royalty, they ask me quite cautiously whether I am one of 'those' people that follow Diana and they seem quite relieved to find out that I am not but I'm always amazed that for non-royal followers, following royalty and following Diana seem to mean the same thing. However they also say that of course, Charles was carrying on with Camilla when he was marrying Diana and if they don't know anything else about Charles, they know that even though they don't care much for either Diana or Charles and they certainly don't know where the statement came from. This belief seems to have entered the public's consciousness without the public ever realizing whether it came from or whether it is really true. If people do know anything else about Charles it is the sure fact as another one of my colleagues told me that the British were going to take the crown away from Charles and give it William. The person I spoke to thought it ridiculous that people were thinking of taking the crown away from Charles and he seemed very sympathetic to Charles becoming King but he thought it was a done deal that Charles would not acceed the throne.

So for most of the people that don't care about this stuff, there are no camps between Diana followers and Camilla followers. However, some of the ideas that Diana wanted planted in people's heads have made themselves into the general public's consciousness without them realizing where it came from much to the detriment of Charles. .

 

[TheTruth]

Sorry Kelly, but what you wrote are only speculations without any facts.

All these threads end in an enduring Diana-Charles-Camilla discussion.
And because we all don´t know the truth biggrin we try to built our own pictures.
It´s okay, but than we shouldn´t forget that we most of the time talk about (our) fiction and not about reality.

I can understand that maybe for Diana supporters it´s important to reflect again and again the past and the time of her marriage with Charles.

For me this topic is more and more boring because it doesn´t bring any news or any new reliable source.

What i see ( i hope in reality) is a Prince of Wales happily married with a woman who gives him the suport he needs to do such a great job!

Yes, of course and it's good to see them happy together at last. My post was only reflecting my point of view, not the truth ; like you said, we all have our own vision.

To get back on-topic, my opinion did change about Camilla. When she married Charles, I thought she would have a hard time integrating the RF. Not that she didn't have the guts to face the whole world, but that she would be tired of the protocol stuff like changing 3 times of dress at Balmoral, the state visits, etc. I was very surprised to see that a woman who enjoys so much the country side and nature has managed to live with it and behave like a real HRH. My respects

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Not that she didn't have the guts to face the whole world, but that she would be tired of the protocol stuff like changing 3 times of dress at Balmoral, the state visits, etc. I was very surprised to see that a woman who enjoys so much the country side and nature has managed to live with it and behave like a real HRH. My respects

Interesting that you say that. But you're right. She has managed to give a good image to the public. But maybe that's because she is now as harassed and photographed as ever, but this time her pictures are not used to the advantage of the media alone but for her "darling husband" and her new family as well. So she does what she necessarily got used to but has now the agreable and positive reward of doing Charles and his family a favour not a misdeed.

I'Ve to say that what Ysbel describes bothers me as well. Because it is repeated over and over again. And finally it reaches each and anybody, even those not interested at all. Yesterday I went to a beauty parlour and my husband was so kind to drive me there and wait for me in the lounge. Being there he flipped through the yellow mags and reported exasperated that he couldn't understand why Charles married the same kind of wacko twice? And I said "What"? Then he told me that he had read that Camilla because of a fight with Charles had tried to commit suicide and that her bodyguard had found and saved her. And he commented (and that was when I first realised he had actually listened to my Royal Rants!): "but that was Diana all over, wasn't it? You told me she had claimed to have done done this and it was all in that book you lately read but that she didn't achieve anything from these tantrums and so why would Camilly behave that way, her being much older and much more street-wise, or so I had claimed!" followed by some mumblings that obvioulsy Charles "was not able (other than him, eg.!) to find a wife who was just a good wife and that was that!" I laughed so hard that probably my new laughing wrinkles managed to kill all effect the treatment had had before I proudly had sailed out of the parlour, but then, okay, that's that.

 

[lexi4]

No, its me that brought this latest topic up because of some comments I got about Charles from people that hardly follow royalty and I am not a Diana follower.

When friends and colleagues first hear I am interested into royalty, they ask me quite cautiously whether I am one of 'those' people that follow Diana and they seem quite relieved to find out that I am not but I'm always amazed that for non-royal followers, following royalty and following Diana seem to mean the same thing. However they also say that of course, Charles was carrying on with Camilla when he was marrying Diana and if they don't know anything else about Charles, they know that even though they don't care much for either Diana or Charles and they certainly don't know where the statement came from. This belief seems to have entered the public's consciousness without the public ever realizing whether it came from or whether it is really true. If people do know anything else about Charles it is the sure fact as another one of my colleagues told me that the British were going to take the crown away from Charles and give it William. The person I spoke to thought it ridiculous that people were thinking of taking the crown away from Charles and he seemed very sympathetic to Charles becoming King but he thought it was a done deal that Charles would not acceed the throne.

So for most of the people that don't care about this stuff, there are no camps between Diana followers and Camilla followers. However, some of the ideas that Diana wanted planted in people's heads have made themselves into the general public's consciousness without them realizing where it came from much to the detriment of Charles. .

I've noticed that too.
Here's a question. How long was it, after marrying Diana, before Charles started seeing Camilla again?

 

[ysbel]

Oh Jo, how funny you must have looked going out of the parlor.

But you're right about the tabloids; I mean another question I got was why Camilla was so intent on breaking up William and Kate; I told them, no she wasn't intent on breaking up Will and Kate and didn't understand where people got that from.

The next day I went into the grocery store and saw a tabloid that said Camilla finally succeeds in getting William to dump Kate. If you don't care about the royals then the fact that they are the subject of so much tabloid fare does make you lose respect for them even if you don't believe everything that the tabloids say.

 

[TheTruth]

Oh Jo, how funny you must have looked going out of the parlor.

But you're right about the tabloids; I mean another question I got was why Camilla was so intent on breaking up William and Kate; I told them, no she wasn't intent on breaking up Will and Kate and didn't understand where people got that from.

The next day I went into the grocery store and saw a tabloid that said Camilla finally succeeds in getting William to dump Kate. If you don't care about the royals then the fact that they are the subject of so much tabloid fare does make you lose respect for them even if you don't believe everything that the tabloids say.

Well the victim Diana is no longer here to sell the Anti-Camilla stories so they've found a way around it. I think tabloids are like :"Camilla destroyed Diana, now she tries to break William" and that sort of BS.

 

[ysbel]

Camilla gets called a romance wrecker and you call Diana the victim, TheTruth? I don't see where Diana was the victim here.

But the term victim you use is another idea that Diana worked to move in the public's consciousness that is so prevalent that people name Diana as the victim even in situations where Diana herself was not victimised.

Your easy and confident labelling of Diana as the victim in a situation where Camilla and not Diana is being victimised is quite troubling.

It is as if for the majority of the public Diana's middle name is Victim and being a victim is such a part of her character that her being a vicitm is brought up all the time regardless whether she was a victim or not.

In shorthand terms, the general public seems to regard her as a victim and they don't look beyond the word victim to the actual situation that was going on.

I think with the public hate campaign that Diana waged against Camilla, Diana was the perpetrator and Camilla was the victim. Diana may have been a victim elsewhere in her life but I fail to see where she was a victim here.

Yet the words Diana and victim invariably go in the same phrase whether people think through the facts or not. And they get brought up in situations where she victimised someone else.

 

[TheTruth]

Camilla gets called a romance wrecker and you call Diana the victim, TheTruth? I don't see where Diana was the victim here.

But the term victim you use is another idea that Diana worked to move in the public's consciousness that is so prevalent that people name Diana as the victim even in situations where Diana herself was not victimised.

Your easy and confident labelling of Diana as the victim in a situation where Camilla and not Diana is being victimised is quite troubling.

It is as if for the majority of the public Diana's middle name is Victim and being a victim is such a part of her character that her being a vicitm is brought up all the time regardless whether she was a victim or not.

In shorthand terms, the general public seems to regard her as a victim and they don't look beyond the word victim to the actual situation that was going on.

I think with the public hate campaign that Diana waged against Camilla, Diana was the perpetrator and Camilla was the victim. Diana may have been a victim elsewhere in her life but I fail to see where she was a victim here.

Yet the words Diana and victim invariably go in the same phrase whether people think through the facts or not. And they get brought up in situations where she victimised someone else.

What I meant by calling Diana a victim, it was in the eyes of people and the tabloids, not in mine . I referred to what tabloids buyers thought. Camilla is the real victim here, no doubt of it.

 

[ysbel]

Oh Ok, TheTruth. So I see you and I are on the same wavelength.

Sorry I thought you were speaking for yourself.

But this brings us back to the idea in the people's consciousness about these figures.

I mean if when people say the word Diana and the first word that comes to mind is victim and then when people say Camilla and the first word that comes to people's mind is Rottweiler then you can see how devastatingly effective Diana's campaign was.

I wonder if there is a way for Camilla to reclaim the Rottweiler comment and other such damaging comments like 'three in this marriage"

I think it would be incredibly funny to see a picture of Charles and Camilla in bed with a real Rottweiler dog between them and have Camilla turn to Charles and say, "Honey, I don't think this is what your first wife meant by 'There Was Three in this Marriage' and Charles responding 'Oh of course, darling, you are absolutely right, there was more than 3. Hurry off Spot, you're getting hairs on the bed. Goodnight Millie' as he turns out the lights.

What are some other ways that Charles and Camilla can neutralize some of the damage that Diana caused to their public reputations (and no I don't mean abdicate from the throne )

 

[milla Ca]

I think it was be incredibly funny to see a picture of Charles and Camilla in bed with a real Rottweiler dog between them and have Camilla turn to Charles and say, "Honey, I don't think this is what your first wife meant by 'There Was Three in this Marriage' and Charles responding 'Oh of course, darling, you are absolutely right, there was more than 3. Hurry off Spot, you're getting hairs on the bed. Goodnight Millie' as he turns out the lights.

LOL, thank you for this, ysbel!