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

[kimebear]

Diana may be history to some, but a memory can be harder to overcome than a living person. In some minds, she will always be young, vibrant and a victim. Charles and Camilla are already doing a great job at promoting their marriage because they are often photographed smiling and at ease with each other. Something that photos of Charles and Diana lacked even early on.

Don't be too sure about the "re-election" thing either. The monarchy in the UK exists at the will of the people after all.

 

[lexi4]

Oh, I think the monarchy will survive just fine. It has for hundreds of years. I think Diana's memory is already fading, maybe not on this forum, but in real life.

 

[Russophile]

Diana will go away with dignity if that idiot Al Fayd will let it go.
Camilla is more Charles' helpmate and I really enjoy seeing them together. I remember when he and Camilla were getting married, wasn't it a child that asked something along the lines of "Do you love her?" and he replied "Oh yes! Very much!" Or something along those lines but he looked to be a kid in a candy store when they married. Very cute!

 

[kimebear]

I'm sure it will survive. Just as long as it never forgets the people that it serves.

 

[kimebear]

Diana will go away with dignity if that idiot Al Fayd will let it go.
Camilla is more Charles' helpmate and I really enjoy seeing them together. I remember when he and Camilla were getting married, wasn't it a child that asked something along the lines of "Do you love her?" and he replied "Oh yes! Very much!" Or something along those lines but he looked to be a kid in a candy store when they married. Very cute!

They did look very happy that day. Charles should have just married her in the '70s and then all of this would have been a non-issue.

 

[lexi4]

Well, it's not like the world has its eyes on Camilla and Charles. Just a microcosm.

 

[ysbel]

Charles and Camilla have a lot to overcome because Diana was really the only one talking. When you have a young pretty wife who was the storybook princess and is telling the story about how miserable her marriage was because of another woman (whether true or not) and she is the only one saying anything, weight is given to her words because they are hers. With Charles and Camilla maintaining their silence, they become the aggressors because they say nothing in their defense. Don't get me wrong. I would lose respect for them if they did start talking. I liked Diana, but I don't think she should have been airing the royal laundry like she did.

Camilla doesn't fit the public image of the fairy tale princess. She is older and not charmingly innocent. She will always be seen by some as the woman that made young Prince William stuff tissue under a door to his crying mother, while Diana was photographed holding AIDS babies. To help change opinions, I would like to see Camilla take a more vocal public role. Let more people see who she is, then maybe opinions can change. I think that it's great that she is such good support and help to Charles, but maybe it would be helpful for her to be seen as more than just his wife.

Its interesting that you say that kimebear. Even though you say that you'd lose your respect for Camilla if she did start talking I wonder if for most people the reaction would be different.

The real change in public opinion that Diana affected was when she did the Panorama interview. I remember a fellow member Polly saying that to her Diana was not being vengeful but was just telling her own truth and sharing her own pain and what she felt.

What if Charles and Camilla gave an interview and very gently but very honestly talked about what the experience felt like for them? They wouldn't need to be vengeful or seek out to destroy Diana in the same way that she tried to destroy them but they could put a human face on their feelings and emotions during this time and give people a vivid image of what it felt like to be on the other side of the story. People may not like what they did but they would be able to put a human face on their images rather than be strapped with the image that Diana wanted the public to have of them.

After all the ludicrousness of people calling Camilla the witch that made William stuff tissues under the bathroom door to a crying Diana because if Diana had decided to respond differently and not shut herself up in the bathroom and scare her young son half to death; there would be no reason for people and William to have this disturbing image of a young boy stuffing tissues under a bathroom door and suffering in the public consciousness.

 

[Russophile]

Barbara Walters could do the interview and ask them what twee they wanted to be after they explained all that.
Seriously, I don't think they would do an interview. That's just the way the Royals are. It would be like Andrew dishing about his marriage. He just wouldn't do that.

 

[lexi4]

Its interesting that you say that kimebear. Even though you say that you'd lose your respect for Camilla if she did start talking I wonder if for most people the reaction would be different.

The real change in public opinion that Diana affected was when she did the Panorama interview. I remember a fellow member Polly saying that to her Diana was not being vengeful but was just telling her own truth and sharing her own pain and what she felt.

What if Charles and Camilla gave an interview and very gently but very honestly talked about what the experience felt like for them? They wouldn't need to be vengeful or seek out to destroy Diana in the same way that she tried to destroy them but they could put a human face on their feelings and emotions during this time and give people a vivid image of what it felt like to be on the other side of the story. People may not like what they did but they would be able to put a human face on their images rather than be strapped with the image that Diana wanted the public to have of them.

I would hope they have more class. That would put their children through unnecessary turmoil. That would just make it look as though they were stooping to her level. And most of the world doesn't care.


After all the ludicrousness of people calling Camilla the witch that made William stuff tissues under the bathroom door to a crying Diana because if Diana had decided to respond differently and not shut herself up in the bathroom and scare her young son half to death; there would be no reason for people and William to have this disturbing image of a young boy stuffing tissues under a bathroom door and suffering in the public consciousness.

I never think about that. I think of William as a young adult who has survived a lot of tragedy.

 

[Russophile]

That is an interesting point because how your parents marriage was, or wasn't really colors how your life is going to be. I had a very selfish mother who ignored me, ergo, I married the man who did the same thing.
Charles and Camilla's marriage, on the other hand, is very, very healthy and strong and a very good influence. I just hope that the boys see that and take note of it for their future marriages.

 

[ysbel]

Well Andrew and Sarah have talked about their marriage and they have been very honest about the problems they had while still managing to be supportive of each other.

I would hope they have more class. That would put their children through unnecessary turmoil. That would just make it look as though they were stooping to her level. And most of the world doesn't care.

Well I think the Panorama interview put their children in turmoil because William and Harry were young teens at the time at an age where children are more impressionable by what their parents do. So yes, I agree that interview had to hurt William and Harry. But now William is grown and Harry has just come from a successful campaign in Afghanistan so I think their self-esteem is more resilient and could withstand an interview by Charles and Camilla as long as their parents used the interview just to share their human experiences and didn't use the interview to trash Diana. They may even feel relieved that their parents are speaking up for themselves and they don't have to defend them.

 

[Russophile]

Now that's tricky because there will be Diana-maniacs who will vilify them both for saying anything thinking it was a direct attack on Diana. I think it would be best if they didn't say anything at all and let their actions, especially these recent happy ones, say it for them.

 

[lexi4]

I would hope that Charles and Camilla would have more class than that and I believe they do. That would turn into a media feeding frenzy and rehash a lot of the past.

 

[ysbel]

Barbara Walters could do the interview and ask them what twee they wanted to be after they explained all that.

Babwa Wabwa! I hope that she wouldn't ask a dumb question, like Charles, who would have to die to make you King?

 

[ysbel]

But to play the devil's advocate...class isn't getting Charles and Camilla anywhere is it? I mean that's what kimebear meant when she said that Charles and Camilla were seen as the aggressor because they kept their silence when in actuality it was really Diana who was the aggressor by opening courting the media and public opinion.

So if Charles and Camilla openly courted the media and public opinion and found an effective way to do it then wouldn't they be successful in casting off the aggressor label?

 

[sirhon11234]

Babwa Wabwa! I hope that she wouldn't ask a dumb question, like Charles, who would have to die to make you King?

I think Barbra hated Gilda's impersonation of her.

Anyway, I don't think Charles and Camilla need to do an interview it's all in the past and that's where it needs to stay they're moving forward and are quite happy.

 

[Russophile]

Babwa Wabwa! I hope that she wouldn't ask a dumb question, like Charles, who would have to die to make you King?

It would be better than that dopey Meredith Viera. She would ask them "Do you both fantasize?"

 

[kimebear]

Its interesting that you say that kimebear. Even though you say that you'd lose your respect for Camilla if she did start talking I wonder if for most people the reaction would be different.

The real change in public opinion that Diana affected was when she did the Panorama interview. I remember a fellow member Polly saying that to her Diana was not being vengeful but was just telling her own truth and sharing her own pain and what she felt.

What if Charles and Camilla gave an interview and very gently but very honestly talked about what the experience felt like for them? They wouldn't need to be vengeful or seek out to destroy Diana in the same way that she tried to destroy them but they could put a human face on their feelings and emotions during this time and give people a vivid image of what it felt like to be on the other side of the story. People may not like what they did but they would be able to put a human face on their images rather than be strapped with the image that Diana wanted the public to have of them.

After all the ludicrousness of people calling Camilla the witch that made William stuff tissues under the bathroom door to a crying Diana because if Diana had decided to respond differently and not shut herself up in the bathroom and scare her young son half to death; there would be no reason for people and William to have this disturbing image of a young boy stuffing tissues under a bathroom door and suffering in the public consciousness.

Well, its really a double edge sword. I gained a lot of respect for Camilla because she didn't dish. I can see your point about perhaps gaining ground from a gentle honest interview. Believe me, I wouldn't mind hearing their story from their side, in their words. I just can't shake the feeling that another tell all interview would cheapen the dignity that their relationship has gained since the wedding. I wanted Diana to live happily ever after as a royal. I watched the wedding, read the tabloids, soaked up every word. Even then I thought the "whatever love means" comment was odd. I admit to reading a lot into it. When she gave her "there were three of us in the marriage" interview I really felt for her as a wife, but as a fan of royalty, I was disgusted by the intrusion upon the institution itself. I don't know. There are really no good answers. I would like to see more of Camilla. The number of her engagements is dwarfed by the other senior royals. As much as I hesitate to suggest it, she should maybe put herself more into the mainstream media so people can get to know her as a person and not just as a wife.

 

[lexi4]

I do think class is getting Charles and Camilla a lot.
I don't think many people see them in the light they did when this all began and I believe that is precisely what their silence is giving them. The best thing that can happen now is for the bloody inquest to end. Meanwhile, Camilla and Charles are handling it all very well. It needs to be over. An interview like that would stir it all up again not to mention the media frenzy. Because if you think it would drop after they gave the interview, well it wouldn't. It would all begin again.

 

[Elspeth]

It would be interesting to see how the tabloids handled Charles and Camilla when they first started to talk about them as an item and see how that opinion has changed over the years. I think Elspeth was doing a research of the history of one of the tabloids depictions of Charles and Camilla over the years and I remember she said how surprising it was that it changed.

But maybe I'm mistaken.

So far, and I'm not as far through this research as I'd like to be, it seems as though the Daily Mail has turned the heat up in its attacks on Camilla since the marriage. Before that, if anything, they were more negative about Charles.

 

[kimebear]

True. I read the one today about how Camilla was "lazy" and skipping functions on their current trip. When you read between the lines all I could really see them proving was (a) its warm in the islands, (b) a 60 year old woman can get tired and (c) it takes a woman longer to get ready for a formal event than it does a man.

Real geniuses they are at the DM!

 

[Elspeth]

The sad part is that we even discuss this today. She is dead, he is happy, so what's the difference?

The difference is that the monarchy isn't as stable today as it used to be. He may be happy personally, but Diana thought she could manipulate the press skillfully enough to attack Charles without damaging the monarchy, and she couldn't. That might not mean as much to you as the personal side of things, but it means a great deal to a lot of British, Australian, Canadian, and other people who live with this monarchy.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Isn't it as stable? I'd say it is. The hysteria passed, we're back to normal. Or as normal as the British can get.

 

[ysbel]

Well I thought kimebear brought up a good point when she said she felt sympathy for Diana as a wife but she felt disgusted at what was being done to the institution. It is conceivable that Charles and Camilla could make themselves very sympathetic to the public but by the very same actions convince the public that they are not right for the throne.

Actually I think Diana somewhat realized this even as she did the Panorama interview. She actually said she would never be Queen of this country. It was as if she knew that despite making a sympathetic portrayal of herself as a person, doing the Panorama interview would kill her ability to represent Britain as a nation as their Queen because Queens just don't do those types of interviews.

So Charles and Camilla must walk a very thin line; they need to make themselves as people more sympathetic to the general public but they can't do it in such a way that would make people think they are unsuitable to represent Great Britain as the country's monarchs.

 

[kimebear]

That's exactly it, ysbel. There are probably a fair number of people who favor Diana's memory right now because Camilla has not made enough of a positive personal impact on them. She could well manage that with a steady-as-she-goes approach. Unfortunately, I don't think last years memorial service fiasco helped matters any. Not really well thought out or executed by the advisors IMHO.

 

[Elspeth]

Isn't it as stable? I'd say it is. The hysteria passed, we're back to normal. Or as normal as the British can get.

No, I don't think it is. When you saw how easily the Mail managed to tap into a reservoir of anti-Charles and anti-Camilla feeling and turn it into a deluge at the time of the Diana memorial concert, I don't think it bodes well for the future of the monarchy. Especially when people in Australia are saying that they'll wait with the republic till the end of this reign but they don't want Charles.

When you see TV snippets of Camilla doing her royal rounds, she seems to come across as very warm, natural, and basically nice. It's sort of a Duchess of Windsor effect - people expect her to be some sort of monster because that's all they've learned about her in their reading, and they're surprised when they meet her to find that she isn't. In that case, the royal advisors should be trying to give Camilla more public exposure, and even if she doesn't like it, she should be getting out more among the people and giving speeches every so often.

 

[cde]

Isn't it as stable? I'd say it is. The hysteria passed, we're back to normal. Or as normal as the British can get.

IMO I agree with Elspeth. Compare a pre-Diana and a pre Rupert Murdoch press Monarchy with today's, I'll grant you the times were different, but the difference is noticeable. Diana and the Murdoch press changed how people viewed the Royals and unfortunately that damage can't be undone.

 

[BeatrixFan]

No, I don't think it is. When you saw how easily the Mail managed to tap into a reservoir of anti-Charles and anti-Camilla feeling and turn it into a deluge at the time of the Diana memorial concert, I don't think it bodes well for the future of the monarchy. Especially when people in Australia are saying that they'll wait with the republic till the end of this reign but they don't want Charles.

When you see TV snippets of Camilla doing her royal rounds, she seems to come across as very warm, natural, and basically nice. It's sort of a Duchess of Windsor effect - people expect her to be some sort of monster because that's all they've learned about her in their reading, and they're surprised when they meet her to find that she isn't. In that case, the royal advisors should be trying to give Camilla more public exposure, and even if she doesn't like it, she should be getting out more among the people and giving speeches every so often.

But the Daily Mail is a comic. It isn't reflective of the British public or we'd be a fascist dictatorship by now.

 

[Elspeth]

It's reflective enough that Camilla had to back down from going to that service because of the depth of public feeling it managed to generate. Don't underestimate the power of the popular press to influence the populace.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

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

Depends on what you call "seeing again". Due to Diana's discomfort with his old circle of friends, he seem to have cut most of them out of his life for a while, including the Parker Bowleses. But at a later point, when his marriage really hit the rocks, he turned back to them for comfort. Probably including Camilla. That was after Harry's birth when already rumours were out that Diana looked for comfort elsewhere, too. It seems that at one point after Harry's birth, Charles and Diana started having each their own circle of friends and all else followed from that, IMHO. It stated like that in both the Dimbleby-book (with Charles' cooperation) and the Morton-book (Diana's side) so I guess that's what really happened.