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

[sirhon11234]

I don't think it's a case of forgetting Diana, she's commemorated when appropriate and surely that's alot more healthy than what we had? It's moving on, living in the present and not the past.

I agree its high time Camilla is known and remembered as his second wife than the former mistress. Let the past be in the past...

 

[Marino01]

I agree its high time Camilla is known and remembered as his second wife than the former mistress. Let the past be in the past...

I agree. She might not be what Diana was, but in the end don't the british people want their Royal Family to be happy?

 

[Mara Jade]

I have always liked Camilla, and I've grown to like and admire her even more over time. I like her much better than Diana, who I thought was untrustworthy and a real diva. Charles seems much happier with a stable, mature wife who loves and respects him and isn't trying to steal the headlines for herself. He should have married Camiila way back when, and then he would have been a much happier man.

 

[sirhon11234]

A real diva, well thats news to me...

but in the end don't the british people want their Royal Family to be happy?

I think the ones who support the monarchy would like the royal family to be happy. Imo its better to have a king and head of the church to have a wife rather than a girlfriend in the background.

 

[sthreats]

.The more I have learned about Camilla the more I like her. She and P. Charles are a good fit. But I don't think we should put down Diana to build up Camilla. Diana and P. Charles were not a good match even for a ?'arranged'? marriage. But IMO early on they were 'in love' or at least deep like. They just didn't have the makings of a long lasting marriage.

 

[Lumutqueen]

My opinion is still the same as it was when they married.
She is a hugely fantastic influence on Prince Charles, it helps that they have known it each other for a long time. They both know what makes each other "tick" so to speak.

x

 

[Lady Laura]

I think Camilla is great, she's good for Charles, does what needs to be done and and doesn't overdo it. They look so comfortable together it makes me smile.

 

[Russophile]

And when (God forbid!) HM passes and and they are crowned, nobody will give a crap as they'll be drooling over the pagentry.
Well, I know at least I will . . .

 

[Skydragon]

And when (God forbid!) HM passes

I'm afraid death is the only certainty in life.

 

[MARG]

So, back to the topic at hand. Has my opinion of Charles and Camilla changed since the marriage. Yes. They keep getting better and better. We are seeing a whole new heir as Camilla draws out the very best in him and enables him to shine.

Camilla is to Charles what the Queen's Mother was to Albert. They make a dynamic duo and are a credit to the BRF.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

I agree on everything you said except for the comparison between the Queen Mother and Camilla and their relationships with their respective husbands. Camilla is certainly an important part in Charles's life, makes him happy and feel at ease, but I don't think that she dominates the relationship the way the Queen Mother dominated hers. Charles may come across as shy or quiet at times but I have never seen him as a shadow person being pushed by his partner to get going. There is no question that everything gets easier when there is "the one" who will share your life and give support but I believe that Charles would have been capable of being a good king in any case, with or without Camilla by his side. Not so sure about Albert in that respect.

 

[Warren]

A long sequence of off topic chit-chat posts which morphed into a discussion of vulgar terms and four-letter words has been removed.

Warren
British Forums moderator

 

[MARG]

. . . . . . . but I don't think that she dominates the relationship the way the Queen Mother dominated hers.

I was thinking of the initial support she provided when Edward abdicated. She gave him confidence and was there for him at all times. But I agree, as with all relationships they grow and change and the Queen Mother trod a thin line between dominant and domineering.

I believe that Charles would have been capable of being a good king in any case, with or without Camilla by his side. Not so sure about Albert in that respect.

Camilla has provided an environment that has enabled Charles to rediscover what we ( and probably he) had thought was lost. Now we see the mature version of the young Prince of Wales we all loved, full of hope and promise. His self-deprecating wit, dry humour and his ability to laugh openly at himself.

How often do we see photos of him grinning from ear to ear, or laughing his head off. How long has it been since we have seen him so very happy and it shows in the way he attacks his duties. We see more of the laughs and gaffs than allegations of "tempremental' or 'tantrums' etc. Noone would believe them any more.

Since the marriage Camilla has concentrated on her husband and her family, enabling them all to be and grow, often at the expense of some pretty harsh media criticism. It is in that respect that a made the analogy with the Queen Mother. In nature those two were more likely polar opposites.

 

[love_cc]

Next month will be TRH's 5th wedding anniversary.... I see things have changed.... They tend to have their own engagments while have joint engagements, in a way proving Camilla's supporting role and her own role...

As Camilla has 5 grandchildren already that Tom and Laura have settled in their own marriages respectively,I can see Willam and Harry will settle in few years...

The best wishes are that TRH always have healthy and happy days together....

My wish, I could receive the wedding DVD before the anniversary to watch...

 

[muriel]

The last 5 years have seen a great change in the public's perception of Charles & Camilla. Very much accepted at the heart of the BRF, Camilla and the royal team have achieved an amazing transformation, especially when compared with the dark days of 1997!

 

[lwbohm]

I think she is wonderfull!
She is a great support for her husband.
And is really finding her feet.

 

[Warren]

Self-described "haters" are advised to leave their thoughts (and posts) to themselves.

Warren
British Forums moderator

 

[CrownPrincess5]

It's not right to dislike Camilla for her past and being involved in the break up of Charles and Diana. But my thoughts about her haven't changed much. I read on other post that she will be queen, but I also read somewhere that Queen Elizabeth said she will be princess consort. I have nothing against Camilla, but I don't think she derserves to be queen.

 

[Russophile]

I think she is wonderfull!
She is a great support for her husband.
And is really finding her feet.

Copy that! And they both look so very happy together.

 

[Pixilated]

It is so wonderful for them they are together and happy,of course it is so sad about Diana, but I am happy for them.If all people could find their soul mate and be this happy..

 

[Iluvbertie]

It's not right to dislike Camilla for her past and being involved in the break up of Charles and Diana. But my thoughts about her haven't changed much. I read on other post that she will be queen, but I also read somewhere that Queen Elizabeth said she will be princess consort. I have nothing against Camilla, but I don't think she derserves to be queen.

At the time of the engagement Clarence House, not Queen Elizabeth, said that the intention was that she would be known as The Princess Consort. Charles has made it known that he would like her to be crowned as his Queen. Tony Blair, the then PM, was asked in Parliament if she would automatically be Queen on Charles' accession and he answered 'Yes', just as she is now The Princess of Wales.

I don't know why she isn't suitable to be Queen, unless it is because she was an adulteress but that means that Diana was also unsuitable as she also committed adultery and played a part in upsetting relationships e.g. Will Carling's.

The only criteria needed to be Queen Consort in Britain is being the wife of the King Regent and if she is alive when Charles succeeds she will meet that criteria.

 

[Osipi]

I don't know why she isn't suitable to be Queen, unless it is because she was an adulteress but that means that Diana was also unsuitable as she also committed adultery and played a part in upsetting relationships e.g. Will Carling's.

The only criteria needed to be Queen Consort in Britain is being the wife of the King Regent and if she is alive when Charles succeeds she will meet that criteria.

IMHO I think the whole adultery part of Charles and Camilla's relationship has been way overblown. What people tend to forget is that even after her marriage to APB, Charles remained close friends with the Parker-Bowles and was godfather to their child. There was something missing from Charles and Diana's relationship from the get go.. the intimacy of a close friendship and it is this I think Diana was really searching for and resented Camilla for having with her husband. What remains now is a couple with a strong relationship that spans decades very happy with each other.

I can't see Camilla being anything other than Charles' Queen and I think she will fit into the role gracefully.

 

[Zonk]

I myself am I torn.

Camilla is Charles wife and she is entitled to be Queen legally and morally when and if Charles becomes King. And Charles has a right to want his wife to be crowned Queen. My problem is how this came about. They should have never said she would be crowned Princess Consort if they didn't mean it.

Obviously at the time of their wedding, there were some residual issues with Camilla and Charles. And honestly, some people have a right to feel this way. Some of it is a bit irrational I would agree. HOWEVER, if it comes out or appears that Charles just said that Camilla would be Princess Consort to just to alleviate some of that residual anger when he never had any intention on following thru his claim...well, I personally have a problem with.

Say what you mean and mean what you say. Don't tell me what you think I want to hear....tell me the truth. That's how I feel about that. Charles and Camilla are human so I am certainly not going to hold them to a standard that is unobtainable...but I would expect some type of credibility and honestly from the Next King of England and leader of the Anglican church.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I do think that in 2005 the intention as stated was meant - namely that she would be Princess Consort. But we all have intentions at certain times in our lives that change. For instance, if Charles had already become King I think she would be Princess Consort but if he has to wait another 10 or so years then the intention could easily change to being Queen Consort particularly if it is obvious that Charles won't be king for very long.

 

[rmay286]

Something I thought about recently is that the debate about Camilla becoming queen might not end up mattering. The Queen, Prince Philip and their children seem to be healthy--really I haven't heard of any of them having a serious health complaint in their lives!--but Camilla has more health problems in her family--her mother had osteoporosis and her father died of cancer, although I think he was 89 or 90 at the time. But it occurred to me that Charles might very well outlive Camilla...and the Queen could outlive her as well.

I don't have a problem with Camilla becoming queen, though. I can't say I respect her for what she did before her marriage to Charles, but she seems to be a good support to him now. And you're right--adulterers aren't forbidden from being crowned. There is no reason why Camilla shouldn't be Queen Consort, IMO.

However, I agree with Zonk that Charles would seem hypocritical if he pushed for Camilla to become Queen, after saying she would only be known as Princess Consort. Even if it was the case that his intentions changed after his marriage.

 

[Iluvbertie]

However, I agree with Zonk that Charles would seem hypocritical if he pushed for Camilla to become Queen, after saying she would only be known as Princess Consort. Even if it was the case that his intentions changed after his marriage.

How is it hypocritical if the intention at the time was x but circumstances change and now it is y?

 

[Jacknch]

Is it not the case that Camilla will have some say in the matter of her title when Charles becomes king? It's possible that she wholeheartedly agreed and prefered the Cornwall title when they married and when the time comes I imagine the "Princess Consort" title is one she would prefer too. She's never struck me as being the type to revel in her status and it's just a thought that whatever her legal or customary rights are, surely she will have a say in what people call her?!

 

[scooter]

How is it hypocritical if the intention at the time was x but circumstances change and now it is y?

I dont believe for one single second that it was the actual 'intention at the time'. I believe that the whole 'it is intended' nonsense was to ameliorate the huge upswell against Charles and Camilla's marriage. I think the whole thing was disingenuous from the start. It was just to assuage public opposition. That would be how it is hypocritical, IMO.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I dont believe for one single second that it was the actual 'intention at the time'. I believe that the whole 'it is intended' nonsense was to ameliorate the huge upswell against Charles and Camilla's marriage. I think the whole thing was disingenuous from the start. It was just to assuage public opposition. That would be how it is hypocritical, IMO.

You evidence for this assertion is....?

As usual you assume the worst of Charles because that suits your beliefs.
I don't think the Queen and the PM would have allowed this comment to go out if it was never the intention for her to be known as Princess Consort. They would have simply kept quiet about it and let people assume that she would be Queen Consort.

 

[muriel]

I believe that the whole 'it is intended' nonsense was to ameliorate the huge upswell against Charles and Camilla's marriage.

What "huge upswell" are you referring to?